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.
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.