Colman Noctor: Nobody needs to insist on getting hugs or banning them altogether

The discussion prompted by the now withdrawn video from the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre led Colman Noctor to consider an uncomfortable question. 

Teaching children about bodily autonomy matters, but we should be clear about which objective we are pursuing and how we expect the message to achieve it

A recent advertisement by the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre, featuring grandparents hugging their grandchildren, has sparked polarised debate.

I interpreted the ad as trying to promote the idea that children should be asked for consent before receiving physical affection, even from those who love them.

This is a principle I wholeheartedly support. Children should never be pressured into hugging anyone, and adults need to respect their wishes.

Teaching children about bodily autonomy is crucial to healthy development.

However, I have reservations about how the advertisement communicates its safeguarding message.

For me, the advertisement does not clearly distinguish between discomfort and danger.

While both situations involve boundaries that deserve respect, the safeguarding implications are profoundly different.

Consider two situations. In the first, a grandmother enthusiastically embraces her grandchild, unaware that the child doesn’t particularly enjoy hugs. Her intentions are affectionate, but she has misjudged the child’s preferences.

In the second, an adult family member deliberately exploits a child’s trust and vulnerability for sexual gratification.

Both situations may involve unwanted physical contact, and both adults fail to respect the child’s boundaries. But surely we can acknowledge that these are fundamentally different situations?

The grandmother needs to become more aware of the child’s preferences, whereas the abusive adult is deliberately violating the child’s boundaries for their own purposes.

Recognising that difference does not diminish a child’s right to refuse any interaction. Nor does it suggest well-intentioned adults should be permitted to disregard children’s wishes.

Good intentions do not make unwanted physical contact acceptable. But intention and context matter, especially when we are trying to promote children’s understanding of interactions and their ability to respond appropriately.

There is an argument that teaching a child to refuse an unwanted hug from an over-exuberant grandmother will help them assert their boundaries in situations where abuse may occur. There may be merit in developing that confidence.

However, my clinical experience has taught me that sexual exploitation frequently involves complex dynamics of trust, manipulation, secrecy and power.

We should be cautious about assuming that a child who can assert themselves to refuse a hug from a loving grandparent will necessarily be equipped to do the same with an adult who is deliberately exploiting them.

There is a glaring distinction between asserting your bodily autonomy with an adult who misunderstands boundaries and one who is knowingly exploiting them. We do children no favours by overlooking that difference.

Another important question is who the campaign’s intended audience is.

If the advertisement is aimed at grandparents and other well-intentioned but overly enthusiastic adults, encouraging them to respect children’s preferences about affection, then that is a perfectly reasonable objective.

But if the broader purpose is to prevent sexual abuse within families, we need to consider how this particular message is expected to achieve that outcome.

We know that children can be sexually abused by people they know, including family members. This makes safeguarding within families particularly important. However, I have worked with adults who deliberately exploit children within their own families, and they are not unaware of children’s boundaries. They deliberately ignore, manipulate or undermine those boundaries for their own gain.

It is therefore difficult to see how an advertisement reminding grandparents to seek permission before hugging would significantly influence someone determined to sexually exploit a child.

Of course, campaigns do not necessarily aim to change the behaviour of potential perpetrators. They aim to empower children and protective adults to intervene. These are legitimate objectives.

But we should be clear about which objective we are pursuing and how we expect the message to achieve it.

We also need to be careful not to place too much responsibility on children to protect themselves from exploitation.

Children can be taught about consent, boundaries and inappropriate behaviour, but they cannot reasonably be expected to recognise every form of adult manipulation. The responsibility for safeguarding children must always rest primarily with adults, not children.

However, if children are the intended audience for this campaign, another question arises. Are we sufficiently explaining the difference between overly exuberant affection that they may not welcome and sinister behaviour that compromises their safety?

Children need to understand that they are entitled to refuse a hug from their grandmother. But they also need to understand that an affectionate grandmother who misjudges their discomfort is not a threat comparable to an adult who seeks to exploit them.

That distinction matters, particularly when we are trying to teach children to recognise situations that may threaten their safety.

That level of discernment requires many developmentally appropriate conversations, not a 30-second public service advertisement.

My concern is that when we simplify these messages, we may inadvertently communicate something other than what we intended.

Are we teaching children that they have the right to refuse affection, or are we inadvertently teaching them to be wary of affection itself?

Because those are two very different messages.

Another fascinating feature of the debate has been the tendency to portray criticism of the advertisement as evidence of indifference to children’s bodily autonomy.

This is an example of what is commonly called a ‘straw man argument’, in which someone’s actual position is replaced with a more extreme or objectionable version, making it easier to attack.

In this case, the argument is: ‘If you don’t support this advertisement, you must believe that children should be forced to hug adults.’ Which couldn’t be further from the truth.

I can support the work of the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre while having reservations about one of its campaigns.

I can recognise the devastating consequences of sexual abuse within families without believing that every instance of unwanted familial affection should be viewed through the same lens.

I also acknowledge that human touch is an important part of how we communicate affection, reassurance and connection.

For many children, a hug from a parent or grandparent can provide comfort, security and protection.

Of course, the benefits of human touch depend on the interaction being welcome and appropriate. But we should be careful not to inadvertently create anxiety around ordinary expressions of physical affection in our efforts to protect children from unwanted contact.

The goal should not be to discourage physical affection, but to encourage adults to be more sensitive to how it is received.

We want children to experience warmth, closeness and connection while knowing they can set boundaries without fear of offending anyone.

These are complementary goals, not competing ones.

I have spent much of my professional life advocating for vulnerable children and recognising the importance of safeguarding them from harm.

I understand why we would want to challenge long-standing social expectations that children should automatically comply with adults.

But any campaign should know who it is intended to reach, what behaviour it aims to change, and whether the audience understands the message.

This advertisement may well encourage more adults to ask children before hugging them. But that is not the same as demonstrating that it improves children’s ability to protect themselves against sexual exploitation.

Ultimately, children deserve both protection from exploitation and the freedom to experience healthy, affectionate relationships.

They deserve adults who respect their boundaries without making ordinary affection feel inherently threatening.

And they deserve safeguarding messages that help them understand the world rather than simply fear it.

Questioning how we communicate an important message is not the same as questioning the message’s importance.

In fact, when the stakes are as high as children’s safety, surely we all have a responsibility to do precisely that.