In the world of parenting, where dirty diapers are as common as cuddles, a new concept is shaking things up: seeking permission from babies before changing their nappies. It’s a notion that has sparked both curiosity and controversy, leaving many scratching their heads in disbelief.
Enter Deanne Carson, a self-proclaimed authority on sexuality education. In her bold claim, she suggests that parents should initiate a dialogue of consent from the very beginning of their child’s life. While it might sound unconventional, Carson argues that even infants can benefit from a culture of consent.
During a notable appearance on ABC, Carson shared her insights on instilling this concept in early childhood. She emphasizes the importance of non-verbal cues, particularly eye contact, in conveying the message that a child’s input matters. While it’s true that newborns can’t verbally respond, Carson suggests that a moment of anticipation, coupled with non-verbal communication, can lay the foundation for a respectful relationship between parent and child.
‘Sexuality expert’ says parents should ask for baby’s consent when changing nappies.
But as with any controversial idea, there are skeptics. Many online voices question the practicality of seeking consent from a baby who can’t comprehend the situation. Some even jest about the absurdity of expecting a verbal response from a newborn.
In the midst of this debate, another parenting guru, John Rosemond, throws his hat into the ring, arguing against the seemingly innocuous act of high-fiving children. According to Rosemond, such gestures undermine parental authority and respect, setting the stage for a lack of discipline in the future.
And what happens when baby says no? Do it anyway? Whoa now there is the real problem
— Glenda 🍃🌻🍃 (@TweetsbyGlenda) May 10, 2018
Either she has never wrestled a toddler during a change or worse, she just left hers in a shitty nappy until it was ready to consent. OMFG.
— Michael Lyten (@lytening67) May 11, 2018
— -@[email protected] (@feather1952) May 10, 2018
In a world where every parenting decision seems to carry weight, these discussions shed light on the complexities of raising children. From consent in diaper changes to the appropriateness of high-fives, every action and interaction plays a role in shaping the parent-child dynamic.
So, what’s the verdict? Are we overthinking parenting, or are these conversations vital for nurturing respectful relationships? As the debate rages on, one thing remains clear: parenting is anything but simple. It’s a journey filled with surprises, challenges, and yes, even dirty diapers. But through it all, one thing is certain – the quest for understanding and improvement never ends.
Fani Willis Takes a Stand Against Nathan Wade – “The Only Thing A Woman Can Do For Him Is Make A Sandwich”
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis recently took to the stand where she spoke to the character of special prosecutor Nathan Wade. Willis’ relationship with Wade has come under increased scrutiny amid allegations of financiaI misconduct. Many have alleged the controversial relationship between Willis and Wade poses a massive conflict of interest.
According to Willis, her conversations with Wade were argumentative by nature, pertaining to the special prosecutor’s view of women. This district attorney claimed that Wade only sees value in women insofar as they will “make him a sandwich.” Willis explained how this dynamic was a source of tension in her relationship with Wade, noting how she gave “him his money back.”
“Mister, let’s go on and have the conversation,” Willis said. “Had absolutely nothing to do with this. It’s interesting that we’re here about this money. Mr. Wade is used to women that, as he told me one time, only thing a woman can do for him is make him a sandwich. We would have brutaI arguments about the fact that I am your equal. I don’t need anything from a man a man is not a plan. A man is a companion. And so there was tension always in our relationship, which is why I was give him his money back. I don’t need anybody to foot my bills, the only man who’s ever put my bills completely is my daddy.”
Following her monologue, Willis was asked, “Is there anything else you’d like to add to that?” She responded, “No. I’m sure we’ll talk about it further.” Willis’ comments about Wade have quickly made the rounds on social media.
Conservative Brief shared footage of Willis’ testimony on X, with the caption, “The Character Assassination Continues! On the stand, Fulton County DA Fani Willis continues to paint her lover Nathan Wade in a terrible light: “Mr. Wade is used to women that— as he told me one time— the only thing a woman can do for him is make a sandwich.””
The American Tribune recently reported on comments from Nathan Wade’s testimony about his extravagant trips with Fani Willi. Many have alleged the trips have been prime exampIes of Willis abusing her position of power to misuse government funds.
A Fulton County Judge recently ruled that Willis and Wade would be forced to testify on these allegations of financial misconduct. Judge McAfee ruled, “I think the issues at point here are whether a relationship existed, whether that relationship was romantic or non-romantic in nature, when it formed, and whether it continues. And that’s only relevant because it’s in combination with the question of the existence and extent of any personal benefit conveyed as a result of their relationship.”
Judge McAfee continued in his ruling, “And so because I think its possibIe that the facts alleged by the defendant could result in disqualification, I think an evidentiary hearing must occur to establish the record on those core allegations.”
See footage of Fani Willis’ testimony below:
A Fulton County Judge recently ruled that Willis and Wade would be forced to testify on these allegations of financial misconduct. Judge McAfee ruled, “I think the issues at point here are whether a relationship existed, whether that relationship was romantic or non-romantic in nature, when it formed, and whether it continues. And that’s only relevant because it’s in combination with the question of the existence and extent of any personal benefit conveyed as a result of their relationship.”
Leave a Reply