In recent years, discussions about consent and how early it should be introduced in human development have become increasingly prominent.
One idea that has generated particular attention — and sparked heated online debate — is the suggestion by an Australian sexuality educator that parents might ask their babies for consent before changing their diapers.
To many, the notion sounds unusual or impractical. Infants lack the language or reasoning to give verbal approval, and diaper changes are a basic caregiving responsibility. Yet, proponents argue the idea isn’t about literal permission, but about cultivating respect, communication, and awareness from the very beginning of life.
Critics, for their part, say the concept misunderstands both consent and the realities of infant care. Here’s a deep dive into the conversation: why the idea was proposed, how experts and parents responded, and what it means for modern parenting.
How the Topic Emerged: Deanne Carson’s Remarks
The debate began with remarks made by Deanne Carson, an Australian sexuality educator, speaker, and author, during an appearance on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) news network.
In that interview, she suggested that parents could use everyday caregiving moments to begin modeling respectful boundaries and communication for their children — even from birth.
Carson said her recommendation was not a literal bid to get a baby’s spoken “yes” before a diaper change, but rather a way of helping children feel included in what’s happening to their body. She gave the example of narrating actions such as: “I’m going to change your nappy now — is that okay?”
…and then pausing to observe the baby’s body language or eye contact as a way of showing that their response matters.
In her view, this approach helps establish early the idea that a child’s body is their own, that adults should announce what they are about to do, and that the child’s reactions — even non‑verbal ones — are worth attention.
Carson’s comments were part of a broader discussion about teaching consent culture, a term referring to norms where respect for personal boundaries and mutual agreement are emphasized in relationships and interactions.
Understanding the Concept: What Carson Actually Meant
At its core, Carson’s suggestion is less about diapers and more about language and mindset. Babies cannot talk, and Carson herself acknowledged that a newborn will not respond with a verbal “yes” or “no”. What she advocates is:
Narrating actions: Telling a baby what you are about to do (change diaper, pick up, feed, etc.)
Creating space for response: Pausing briefly to observe the baby’s reactions — such as eye contact, body stillness, or fussing — even if those reactions don’t amount to literal consent
Modeling respect for agency: Helping infants begin to associate caregiving with communication and awareness rather than purely passive experience.
In other words, the exercise is symbolic, aimed at fostering early awareness and laying the groundwork for later, more explicit conversations about personal boundaries.
This framing aligns with some child‑development philosophies that emphasize treating infants as active participants rather than passive objects — not because they can make fully informed decisions, but because even preverbal children perceive tone of voice, eye contact, and interaction cues.
Public Reaction: Laughter, Confusion, Outrage and Dialogue
Criticism and Mockery
Almost immediately after the ABC segment aired — and years later when clips resurfaced online — many people reacted with confusion, mocking the idea on social media and news commentary. Responses ranged from humorous disbelief to outright rejection:
One commenter quipped that if babies need consent for diaper changes, “you also need permission from your cat before changing its litter tray.”
Another wrote that a crying baby in a dirty diaper is literally giving consent because the discomfort signals a need for change.
Critics on social platforms heavily criticized Carson’s credentials and logic, claiming that babies simply cannot consent to basic care and that the idea was impractical or “absurd”.
Columnist and editor Rowan Dean called it “left‑y lunacy” during an on‑air discussion, ridiculing the broadcast as an example of overly progressive thinking.
Similarly, parenting expert John Rosemond wrote that such suggestions would once have been seen as unrealistic or extreme, and warned they could undermine clarity in family rules when practical needs — like diaper changes — must take precedence over philosophical ideals.
These reactions highlight how polarizing the intersection of consent culture and child‑rearing philosophies can be, especially when ideas are presented briefly in media formats without extensive context.
Support and Nuanced Appreciation
Not all reactions were dismissive — some parents and caregivers expressed moderate support or at least willingness to consider the underlying principles.
Supporters acknowledged that, while asking for consent before a diaper change may not be literal, it could help:
Foster early communication awareness, even in non‑verbal children
Teach children that adults pay attention to their responses
Build trust through consistent respect for the child’s physical experience
Help children feel seen and safe before and during personal care tasks
One commenter pointed out that many babies begin learning communication long before they speak, and that respect and attention to cues like eye contact and body language are meaningful even without words.
Another argued that the idea isn’t harmful — and might even promote peaceful interactions between caregivers and infants — even if the practice sounds unconventional at first.
Why This Resonates With Some Child‑Development Experts
The concept Carson referenced isn’t entirely foreign to developmental psychology and certain parenting philosophies. A few points of context help explain why some experts and parenting communities find value in relating to infants in this way:
1. Infants Perceive and React to Interaction
Research shows babies are highly attuned to facial expressions, tone of voice, and eye contact. Even before they can speak, infants respond to the emotional and social cues of caregivers. Talking to babies — narrating what is happening — supports bonding and social awareness.
2. RIE (Resources for Infant Educarers) Philosophy
Parenting approaches like RIE emphasize treating infants with respect, giving them opportunities to participate in interactions as much as possible.
This includes phrases like “I’m going to pick you up now” or “It’s time for a diaper change” spoken before the action. Such language is intended to help babies feel informed, even if they can’t truly consent.
3. Setting the Stage for Boundaries Later in Life
Proponents argue that early exposure to respectful communication about one’s body can lay the foundation for later, more concrete consent conversations as children grow older.
This doesn’t mean infants ever have a right to refuse a diaper change in a literal sense, but that they grow accustomed to verbal acknowledgment and respectful interaction.
Interestingly, newer parenting literature — including resources from universities and children’s advocacy organizations — increasingly emphasize concepts like bodily autonomy and age‑appropriate communication, though not to the extent of demanding infants explicitly approve every caregiving task.
Common Misunderstandings and Clarifications
One of the main sources of confusion in this debate is the way Carson’s comments were interpreted or shared online. Clarifying a few key points helps ground the discussion:
Babies Cannot Literally Consent
None of the sources, including Carson herself, argue that infants can verbalize or critically decide to approve or refuse care in the way adults do. A baby simply cannot process the concept of consent as a legal or ethical decision.
The Practice Is Symbolic and Intentional
The suggested phrasing — “I’m going to change your diaper — is that okay?” — is more symbolic than directive. It’s about slowing down, narrating actions, and acknowledging the child’s presence before initiating a caregiving task.
Basic Needs Still Take Priority
No reliable expert recommending consent language suggests that parents should wait for affirmative approval before addressing urgent physical needs (like changing a very soiled diaper or attending to pain, hunger, or discomfort).
Caring for a baby’s health and hygiene is always necessary and ethically paramount over philosophical discussion. Parents still need to act responsibly regardless of any consent framing.
A Middle Ground: Respectful Communication Without Misinterpretation
While the original idea raised eyebrows, many child‑rearing experts would likely agree on simpler, uncontroversial elements:
Talk to your child — even babies benefit from hearing a calm voice during caregiving routines.
Make eye contact and offer reassurance — this helps infants feel secure.
Explain what you are about to do — even if the child cannot respond, this models respectful interaction and trust.
Parents don’t need to adopt philosophical frameworks to engage in thoughtful communication with their infants.
Nearly all pediatricians and child‑development specialists emphasize responsive caregiving — attending to a baby’s signals and comfort — as foundational to healthy development.
What This Debate Reveals About Modern Parenting
The intense reactions to Carson’s suggestion reflect broader societal shifts. Several forces are at play:
1. Evolving Norms Around Consent
In the past decade, consent has become a central topic in education, relationships, and social discourse. Many parents are now thinking more consciously about how to teach children about autonomy, boundaries, and respect from a young age.
2. Parenting Advice Is More Public Than Ever
The internet allows any idea — conventional or controversial — to spread rapidly. What might once have been a small conversation among a few experts now becomes a viral topic with thousands of comments, memes, and polarized views.
3. Emotional Investment in Parenting Choices
Parents today often feel pressure to make the “right” choices in an era of abundant (and sometimes contradictory) parenting guidance.
A suggestion about consent language, even if symbolic, can trigger strong reactions because it taps into deeper anxieties about doing parenting “correctly.”
Conclusion: A Controversial Suggestion, a Broader Conversation
The controversy over asking babies for permission before changing their diapers highlights a broader conversation about how we talk to children about their bodies, autonomy, and respect.
While the idea as originally framed may have struck many as impractical or extreme, the underlying emphasis on respectful, communicative caregiving resonates with well‑established parenting practices that encourage connection and responsiveness.
At the end of the day, incorporating gentle, descriptive language during caregiving — explaining what is happening and observing the child’s cues — can support trust and awareness without compromising necessary care. Parents and caregivers who choose to do so may find it enriches their interactions; others may prefer simpler routines.
Either way, the discussion has encouraged reflection on how adults engage with even the youngest children — and underscores that parenting, like all relationships, benefits from attention, empathy, and clear communication.
