Editing Consent (section)

==Sexual activity==

{{See also| Sexual consent|Rape#Consent|Sexual consent in law}}
{{undue weight section|date=August 2019}}
In Canada, "consent means [...] the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in sexual activity" without abuse or exploitation of "trust, power or authority", coercion or threats.<ref name=canadiancriminalcode>{{cite journal|journal= Canadian Criminal Code|url=http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-137.html#docCont|title=Canadian Criminal Code|date=2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150403171628/http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-137.html|archive-date=3 April 2015|url-status=dead}} Retrieved March 13, 2015.</ref> Consent can also be revoked at any moment.<ref name=Hall>{{cite journal|last=Hall|first=David S.|title=Consent for Sexual Behavior in a College Student Population|journal=Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality|date=10 August 1998|volume=1}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=What Is Consent? {{!}} CARE Program |url=https://care.ucr.edu/education/what-is-consent |access-date=2025-04-14 |website=care.ucr.edu |language=en}}</ref> The [[Supreme Court of British Columbia]] ruled that badgering alone, followed by an agreement, does not meet the threshold of coercion to vitiate consent.<ref name=BCcourt>{{cite journal|journal=Supreme Court of British Columbia Justice Giaschi|first=Christopher|last=Giaschi|url=https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2023/2023bcsc674/2023bcsc674.html|title=R. v. O.V.O|date=6 February 2023|quote=She gave no particulars of how he forced, coerced, or manipulated her. At best, her evidence was that the defendant badgered her to engage in sexual activity and that she eventually relented, gave into, or agreed to such requests.}}</ref>

Sexual consent plays an important role in defining what sexual assault is, since [[Human sexual activity|sexual activity]] without consent by all parties is [[rape]].<ref name=Roffee/><ref name=Beres>{{cite journal|last=Beres. A|first=Melanie|title='Spontaneous' Sexual Consent: An Analysis of Sexual Consent Literature|journal=Feminism & Psychology|date=18 January 2007|volume=17|issue=93|page=93|doi=10.1177/0959353507072914|s2cid=143271570}}<!—|access-date=28 October 2013–></ref>{{better source needed|date=August 2019}} In the late 1980s, academic Lois Pineau argued that we must move towards a more communicative model of sexuality so that consent becomes more explicit and clear, objective and layered, with a more comprehensive model than "no means no" or "yes means yes".<ref name=PINEAU>{{cite journal|last=Pineau|first=Lois|title=Date Rape: A Feminist Analysis|journal=Law and Philosophy|year=1989|volume=8|issue=217|pages=217–243|doi=10.1007/BF00160012|s2cid=144671456}}</ref> Many universities have instituted campaigns about consent. Creative campaigns with attention-grabbing slogans and images that market consent can be effective tools to raise awareness of campus sexual assault and related issues.<ref name="ReferenceA">Thomas KA, Sorenson SB, Joshi M. "Consent is good, joyous, sexy": A banner campaign to market consent to college students. Journal of American College Health. 2016; 64(8):639-650</ref>

Since the late 1990s, new models of sexual consent have been proposed. Specifically, the development of "yes means yes" and affirmative models, such as Hall's definition: "the voluntary approval of what is done or proposed by another; permission; agreement in opinion or sentiment."<ref name=Hall/> Hickman and Muehlenhard state that consent should be "free verbal or nonverbal communication of a feeling of willingness' to engage in sexual activity."<ref>Hickman, S.E. and Muehlenhard, C.L. (1999) '"By the Semi-mystical Appearance of a Condom": How Young Women and Men Communicate Sexual Consent in Heterosexual Situations', The Journal of Sex Research 36: 258–72.</ref> Affirmative consent may still be limited since the underlying, individual circumstances surrounding the consent cannot always be acknowledged in the "yes means yes", or in the "no means no", model.<ref name=Roffee>{{cite book|title=Roffee James A., 'When Yes Actually Means Yes: Confusing Messages and Criminalising Consent' in Rape Justice: Beyond the Criminal Law eds. Powell A., Henry N., and Flynn A., Palgrave, 2015|pages=72–91|doi=10.1057/9781137476159_5|chapter = When Yes Actually Means Yes|year = 2015|last1 = Roffee|first1 = James A.|isbn=978-1-349-57052-2}}</ref>

Some individuals are unable to give consent. [[Minor (law)|Minors]] below a certain age, the [[Age of consent|age of sexual consent]] in that [[jurisdiction]], are deemed not able to give valid consent by law to sexual acts. Likewise, persons with [[Alzheimer's disease]] or similar disabilities may be unable to give [[Consent (criminal law)|legal consent]] to sexual relations even with their spouse.<ref name=NYT42215>{{cite news|author1=Pam Belluck|title=Iowa Man Found Not Guilty of Sexually Abusing Wife With Alzheimer's|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/23/health/iowa-man-found-not-guilty-of-sexually-abusing-wife-with-alzheimers.html|access-date=April 23, 2015|work=The New York Times|date=April 22, 2015}}</ref>

Within literature,{{vague|date=August 2019}} definitions surrounding consent and how it should be communicated have been contradictory, limited or without consensus.<ref name=Roffee/><ref name=Beres/> Roffee argued that legal definition needs to be universal, so as to avoid confusion in legal decisions. He also demonstrated how the moral notion of consent does not always align with the legal concept. For example, some adult siblings or other family members may voluntarily enter into a relationship, however the legal system still deems this as incestual, and therefore a crime.<ref>{{cite journal|doi=10.1093/hrlr/ngu023|title= No Consensus on Incest? Criminalisation and Compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights| volume=14 |issue= 3| journal=Human Rights Law Review|pages=541–572|year= 2014|last1= Roffee|first1= J. A.}}</ref> Roffee argues that the use of particular language in the legislation regarding these familial sexual activities manipulates the reader to view it as immoral and criminal, even if all parties are consenting.<ref>{{cite journal|title= The Synthetic Necessary Truth Behind New Labour's Criminalisation of Incest| doi=10.1177/0964663913502068 | volume=23|journal=Social & Legal Studies|pages=113–130|year = 2014|last1 = Roffee|first1 = James A.| s2cid=145292798 }}</ref> Similarly, some children under the legal age of consent may knowingly and willingly choose to be in a sexual relationship. However the law does not view this as legitimate. Whilst there is a necessity for an age of consent, it does not allow for varying levels of awareness and maturity. Here it can be seen how a moral and a legal understanding do not always align.<ref>{{cite book|title=Roffee, James (2015). When Yes Actually Means Yes in Rape Justice. 72 - 91|doi=10.1057/9781137476159_5 |chapter = When Yes Actually Means Yes|year = 2015|last1 = Roffee|first1 = James A. |isbn=9781137476159}}</ref>

Initiatives in sex education programs are working towards including and foregrounding topics of and discussions of sexual consent, in primary, high school and college Sex Ed curricula.  In the UK, the Personal Social Health and Economic Education Association (PSHEA) is working to produce and introduce Sex Ed lesson plans in British schools that include lessons on "consensual sexual relationships," "the meaning and importance of consent" as well as "[[rape myth]]s".<ref name=UK>{{cite journal|last=Rawlinson|first=Kevin|title=Plans for sexual consent lessons in schools 'do not go far enough'|date=9 March 2015}} Retrieved March 13, 2015.</ref> In U.S., California-Berkeley University has implemented affirmative and continual consent in education and in the school's policies.<ref name=Grinberg/> In Canada, the Ontario government has introduced a revised Sex Ed curriculum to Toronto schools, including new discussions of sex and affirmative consent, healthy relationships and communication.<ref name=CAN>{{cite journal|last=Rushowy|first=Kristin|url=https://www.thestar.com/yourtoronto/education/2015/02/25/in-ontario-sex-ed-consent-the-hot-issue.html|title=In Ontario sex ed, consent the hot issue|newspaper=The Toronto Star|date=25 February 2015}} Retrieved March 10, 2015.</ref>

===Affirmative consent===
Affirmative consent (enthusiastic yes) is when both parties agree to sexual conduct, either through clear, verbal communication or nonverbal cues or gestures.<ref name=Grinberg>{{cite journal|last=Grinberg|first=E.|url=http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/living/affirmative-consent-school-policy/|title=Enthusiastic yes in sex consent education|date=29 September 2014 |access-date=March 10, 2015 |website=CNN }}</ref> It involves communication and the active participation of people involved. This is the approach endorsed by colleges and universities in the U.S.,<ref>{{Cite news |title=Opinion {{!}} Affirmative consent: A primer |newspaper=Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2015/10/12/affirmative-consent-a-primer/ |access-date=2023-05-03 |issn=0190-8286}}</ref> which describe consent as an "affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decision by each participant to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity." According to Yoon-Hendricks, a staff writer for Sex, Etc., "Instead of saying 'no means no,' 'yes means yes' looks at sex as a positive thing." Ongoing consent is sought at all levels of sexual intimacy regardless of the parties' relationship, prior sexual history or current activity ("Grinding on the dance floor is not consent for further sexual activity," a university policy reads).<ref name=Grinberg/> By definition, affirmative consent cannot be given if a person is intoxicated, unconscious or asleep.

There are 3 pillars often included in the description of sexual consent, or "the way we let others know what we're up for, be it a good-night kiss or the moments leading up to sex."

They are:

# Knowing exactly what and how much I'm agreeing to
# Expressing my intent to participate
# Deciding freely and voluntarily to participate<ref name=Grinberg/>

To obtain affirmative consent, rather than waiting to say or for a partner to say "no", one gives and seeks an explicit "yes". This can come in the form of a smile, a nod or a verbal yes, as long as it is unambiguous, enthusiastic and ongoing. "There's varying language, but the language gets to the core of people having to communicate their affirmation to participate in sexual behavior," said Denice Labertew of the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault.<ref name=Grinberg/> "It requires a fundamental shift in how we think about sexual assault. It's requiring us to say women and men should be mutually agreeing and actively participating in sexual behavior."<ref name=Grinberg/>

=== Critiques of affirmative consent ===
{{More citations needed section|date=August 2024}}
The above concept of affirmative consent has become more mainstream and promoted in public discourse, institutions and the workplace, especially following the #MeToo scandals. However, feminists from varying political backgrounds have voiced concerns and critiques of affirmative consent as a solution to both sexual assault and creating sexual equality and autonomy between all genders.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Sikka |first=Tina |date=May 2021 |title=What to do about #MeToo? Consent, autonomy, and restorative justice: A case study |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sgp2.12027 |journal=Sexuality, Gender & Policy |volume=4 |issue=1 |pages=24–37 |doi=10.1002/sgp2.12027 |issn=2639-5355}}</ref> If women, queer people and other marginalized groups are not free to say no, why would they be free to say yes? <ref name="Harris 155–178">{{Cite journal |last=Harris |first=Kate Lockwood |date=2018-03-04 |title=Yes means yes and no means no, but both these mantras need to go: communication myths in consent education and anti-rape activism |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00909882.2018.1435900 |journal=Journal of Applied Communication Research |volume=46 |issue=2 |pages=155–178 |doi=10.1080/00909882.2018.1435900 |issn=0090-9882|url-access=subscription }}</ref> Feminists have been seeking for more transformative alternatives that go beyond a (verbal) agreement between sexual partners, examining the issue as a political question related to power structures, the influence of neoliberal perceptions of the self and the complexity of human desire.

==== Neoliberal contractualism and rationalism ====
{{unreferenced section|date=August 2024}}
The common form of affirmative consent assumes that humans act as rational and independent beings who, at any point in any interaction, are fully aware of what they are (not) consenting to, whether they want to and are able to make a conscious, valid decision. Consent, as it is practiced now, thus requires us to rationalize desires and prioritizes thinking over feeling, and reason over emotions. The resulting consent is shaped in a neoliberal form of contractualism which makes a withdrawal of consent or a change in the conditions of the activity at stake rather challenging. This form of consent as a contract is assuming consent to happen between two (or more) individual and rational actors and it does not give room to forms of discomfort, vulnerability or discussion within the practice consented to. Additionally, this contractualism mostly relies on verbal, affirmative consent and overlooks non-verbal or alternative ways of consenting. The latter is rather essentializing signs of affirmation and, due to its reliance on verbal consent in form of understandable words, can be ableist by invalidating non-verbal consent. Furthermore, contractualism assumes consent to be rational by nature and implies that we always know rationally whether or not we want to consent to something. However, especially in the sphere of interpersonal sexual and non-sexual activities, our own needs or desires are not always rational but can rather be ambiguous, contradicting or unclear. Consent in the form of neoliberal contractualism is unable to include and reflect this ambiguity and the lack of rationality.{{citation-needed|date=August 2024}}

==== Socio-cultural vs legal debate ====
Arguably, there is a distinction that is rarely made in the debate around consent: the socio-cultural and the legal. While talking about consent, arguments are often informed and talked about in a legal framework: What do we need to be protected in the current legal framework? Which formulations give the best protection to victims of sexual violence? However, when talking about this particular protection there is also a need for protection through prevention, a protection by society rather than the law.

While it is not necessarily a given that affirmative consent provides the best legal protection for victims without taking away their agency, there is another danger in linking the legal debate and our overall understanding of consent. Relying on the legal framework and presenting these as the question of consent takes away the need for change and discussion on the socio-cultural level that has the potential to offer even more complexity, flexibility and room to rethink our sexual and overall encounters beyond the protection against violence. A socio-cultural debate would be one around our needs, attitudes and behaviors and the changes needed, which arguably is a more complex debate to hold and handle.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Meadows |first=Agnes |date=December 2021 |title=Between desire and uncertainty: ''Tomorrow Sex Will be Good Again'' by Katherine Angel |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/criq.12646 |journal=Critical Quarterly |volume=63 |issue=4 |pages=126–131 |doi=10.1111/criq.12646 |issn=0011-1562|url-access=subscription }}</ref> With a certain level of protection this complexity is needed though to rethink our encounters beyond the mantras of 'no means no' and 'only yes means yes', something that is not reductionist to be applied in a legal setting and that gives the possibility to imagine interactions beyond the current status quo.<ref name="Harris 155–178"/>