New controversial Ad in Ireland about consent

[u/ArcherVisible5866]

[u/Adventurous-Web-412]

Yeah idk it seems like an odd one. And frankly I feel its a good thing that someone has to receive harmless acts of affection. Its like take it to the same degree, when yer parents have whoever the fuck over, and called you out to go greet them and say hello, is this also problematic? I am not sure, but I feel like all these things help build better social kids.

[u/Jekmander → u/Adventurous-Web-412]

If you two can't understand how teaching children that certain people are entitled to their bodies could cause problems, then I feel for your children.

The video isn't saying affection is a problem, it's saying consent is important. You wouldn't hug or kiss a woman if she said she didn't want it (I hope), so why is it any different for a child?

[u/Adventurous-Web-412 → u/Jekmander]

I would not hug or kiss a woman if they directly say it yes, but this is not the same scenario and swapping it feels rather bad faith.

Like a hug in this scenario is the same as a handshake. Yeah you could say "I don't want to handshake" but its just odd, its a short conventioned greeting, and saying "your consent is all that matters" feels very shortsighted for the development of a child. It is not a blanket rule, and parents should be able to understand when their child has sensory issues or what have you, but at the end of the day its an enormously aggressive line to draw.

[u/Jekmander → u/Adventurous-Web-412]

Man, if a kid says they don't want to be touched, don't fucking touch them. They have all the same rights you do, and they're not obligated to explain themselves. You are the reason they're running these ads lmfao

[u/Adventurous-Web-412 → u/Jekmander]

Where was I saying that you should still touch a child if they say no. Also stop with the fucking ad hominems holy shit, I swear every single time with these comments there is no argument its just a weird absolutist position physical contact and then trying to hint at "oh you don't care about consent" whenever someone points out anything.

Yes you can say no to a hug, yes you can say no to a handshake, its just fucking bizarre. Its a enormously harmless greeting convention, and this isn't with a stranger its with your grandparents. Given how 1. kids need physical touch to develop and 2. kids need to be socialised and learn to put up with being mildly uncomfortable, drawing some enormous line where if the kid just doesn't want to have a hug because children infamously are awkward and shy is silly. A parents job is to make their children functioning members of societies, part of that is socialising which includes forcing them to do things that they find awkward.

[u/actuallyacatmow → u/Adventurous-Web-412]

You're making an absolutist position yourself though.

You're assuming that all these interactions are completely harmless 100% of the time, its always just awkward children who just need nudges into social interaction, the grandparents are perfectly nice people and that there isn't an issue with certain relatives forcing children to physically interact with them.

You know sometimes, family members can be weird with lingering hugs. Children can be given bad messages from parents when they're told to just be quiet and deal with the 30 second hug from a drunk uncle.

The ad is targeting that. It's not saying we need to shouldn't nudge kids into social interaction when they need it.

[u/Adventurous-Web-412 → u/actuallyacatmow]

I am struggling to read this ad as still saying its fine to nudge children into social interactions at all, it depicts an entirely normal grandparent grandchildren interaction, and its fairly clear thats what it depicts because its all anyone is picking up in the comments. This ad is certainly not saying "in the scenarios which the grandparents are creepy bastards", its making a very blanket statement which people are doubling down upon in the comments.

I should have added a sometimes in there, I understand it is not literally 100% of the time always, because yes family members can be weird. Although I thought it was clear enough that I am not saying no matter what always hug lmao. But can be weird is still nowhere near a default assumption to be making, which again, is what people are making.

These interactions are generally harmless, just because its not 100% of the time, and good parents should be able to notice that and tell their child that they can be open about that so its avoided, doesn't make it so we should suddenly start saying its something that the child can just avoid whenever they feel it because thats poor socialisation and creates problems.

[u/actuallyacatmow → u/Adventurous-Web-412]

If you think that a grandparent moving in to hug a clearly very very uncomfortable child, completely ignoring their expression, without stopping to pause and question it, is a normal social interaction then I really don't know what to tell you. Kind of seems it's not part of the 'harmless' interactions you're touting as the absolute.

It's a targeted advertisement reminding people that children also have bodily autonomy. I live in Ireland. You're free to look at the billion other types of government advertising and tv shows that depict casual easygoing physical affection in our culture with our children as good and necessary.

[u/Jekmander → u/Adventurous-Web-412]

I apologize for my rudeness. I'm going to explain my full thought process with the belief that you're arguing in good faith (I did not believe so before, as few people on here ever are. My apologies again) and ask that you do the same.

To begin with, I agree with you that kids need to face some degree of discomfort and awkwardness for the sake of their development. I understand the need for social interaction, even when they'd prefer to be solitary. However, I don't feel that there should ever be a situation where any child (or adult, for that matter) should feel compelled to allow another person to touch them despite being uncomfortable. In a world where damn near every woman you ask has a story of sexual harassment or assault, it's important that we teach our children about the importance of consent and bodily autonomy. Especially considering a large portion of (reported) sexual crimes are committed by family members, that emphasis on consent and bodily autonomy is just as important when dealing with family, if not moreso.

Conditioning children to allow physical contact that they're uncomfortable with as long as it's a family member or person of authority is just a recipe for disaster. If/when a creep comes around, their desires are far easier to achieve if the child is already complacent to discomfort. Bodily autonomy is not, and should never be, a conditional right influenced by who is asking to violate it.

[u/Adventurous-Web-412 → u/Jekmander]

But I mean look at what all these ride on. It rides on the assumption that 1. the generally harmless interaction with your grandparents with your parents there is going to be insidious and 2. expanding it outwards to all family members, all people of authority, all interactions universally.

You can have a conversation with your child about consent and bodily autonomy, without using the teaching of social skills and greeting conventions as the location to be where they can just say no. The creepy uncle is not your grandmother, and the parents as well as the child can work together (and frankly the parents should be aware of noticing a bit of a strange interaction) to avoid interactions with family members who are weird or creepy. But its a default yes convention, you aren't barred from saying no to a hug, its a social cost that needs to be taught.

Like you understand the contradiction between saying children need to face discomfort and awkwardness for development, yet they should never need to face it if they don't want to? I don't know how you were as a child, but I was shy, and if it weren't for my parents, I would have avoided EVERY interaction with any family member at all. The ad, and seemingly your extension of it, is that to avoid the horrific scenarios where family members take advantage of younger members, we should just right off all physical touch if they don't want it. But its not functional, children need physical touch to develop cognitively and socially, and so they do need to be "forced" for lack of a better word into these harmless interactions with family members.

There is fundamentally a risk, and the parents alongside the child should be able to work around the risk to still allow the interaction, not create a blanket rule like the ad is suggesting.