Young People and Sexual Consent: Contextualising 'Miscommunication' amid 'Grey Areas' of Ambiguity and Ambivalence
Saved in:
| Title: | Young People and Sexual Consent: Contextualising 'Miscommunication' amid 'Grey Areas' of Ambiguity and Ambivalence |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Emily Setty (ORCID |
| Source: | Sex Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning. 2025 25(1):140-155. |
| Availability: | Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 16 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Descriptive |
| Descriptors: | Sexuality, Congruence (Psychology), Interpersonal Communication, Interpersonal Relationship, Social Influences, Power Structure, Sex Education, Social Development, Emotional Development, Gender Bias, Social Bias, Foreign Countries, Sexual Abuse, Violence, Adolescents, Young Adults |
| Geographic Terms: | United Kingdom (England) |
| DOI: | 10.1080/14681811.2023.2259321 |
| ISSN: | 1468-1811 1472-0825 |
| Abstract: | Educating young people about sexual consent aims to help them develop healthy relationships and prevent sexual harm. Yet, there remains no consensus on how to define consent nor the connection between consent and sexual harm. This article discusses findings from qualitative research conducted with young people in England that has explored issues of sexual consent. It engages with tensions around the so-called 'grey areas' and oft-critiqued 'miscommunication model' of consent and suggests that some form of 'miscommunication' may underpin some, albeit not all, experiences of sexual harm among young people. Young people may experience problems articulating and interpreting consent not because of malintent or substandard or disparate communication skills but because of interpersonal and sociocultural power dynamics that constrain the communication and operation of consent. Consent education needs, therefore, to support young people develop the socio-emotional skills and literacy required to navigate gendered and heterosexual (inter)personal pressures, expectations, and sexual scripts. It should involve active participation of young people whereby they identify the conditions in which sexual activity unfolds and the power dynamics that constrain the operation of consent. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2024 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1452743 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwF2wQ-rA8n2HFcK5mFCebcjAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDISyUtIS35thStacJwIBEICBmoizjbAkWEUidTvdOPt7q1G5t9dRhBUI9x7osYz3sh7ghsSHgIyrBpiB6li72FOno3gPwArU20ZWsBWL1uARrvUtn4txbrJF2Ah8vYPTAuefL6oVbByxA-AEzpgRkfWPDVa9pRDXp8c0JicOKOFMwmarLyD025fu1NeDY5M7-lhKyQEEPGZteKGRWH-1O_pkivWPQLpUzmGSI5I= Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0181550274;bf401jan.25;2024Dec12.05:13;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0181550274-1">Young people and sexual consent: contextualising 'miscommunication' amid 'grey areas' of ambiguity and ambivalence </title> <p>Educating young people about sexual consent aims to help them develop healthy relationships and prevent sexual harm. Yet, there remains no consensus on how to define consent nor the connection between consent and sexual harm. This article discusses findings from qualitative research conducted with young people in England that has explored issues of sexual consent. It engages with tensions around the so-called 'grey areas' and oft-critiqued 'miscommunication model' of consent and suggests that some form of 'miscommunication' may underpin some, albeit not all, experiences of sexual harm among young people. Young people may experience problems articulating and interpreting consent not because of malintent or substandard or disparate communication skills but because of interpersonal and sociocultural power dynamics that constrain the communication and operation of consent. Consent education needs, therefore, to support young people develop the socio-emotional skills and literacy required to navigate gendered and heterosexual (inter)personal pressures, expectations, and sexual scripts. It should involve active participation of young people whereby they identify the conditions in which sexual activity unfolds and the power dynamics that constrain the operation of consent.</p> <p>Keywords: Consent; sexual harm; young people; gender</p> <hd id="AN0181550274-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Educating young people about sexual consent forms part of Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) in England. Department for Education (DfE) statutory guidance for RSE (Department for Education [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref1">27</reflink>]) states that young people need to learn the law on consent, what constitutes illegal non-consensual sexual activity, how to communicate and interpret consent and non-consent, and about rights to withdraw consent. Consent is positioned in the guidance as integral to healthy relationships and to keeping young people safe from, what Lloyd and Bradbury ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref2">53</reflink>]) term, sexual harm. Yet, there remains no consensus on how to define consent nor the connection between consent and sexual harm (Beres [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref3">11</reflink>]). Further complexities relate to whether and how consent arbitrates whether sexual activity is, or should be deemed, acceptable or permissible.</p> <p>In this article, I discuss findings from qualitative studies I have conducted between 2016–2022 with young people in England that have, either incidentally or by design, explored sexual consent. The research involved interviews, focus groups and observations in elite independent schools, state academy schools, and youth clubs, predominantly in southeast England. I have spoken to young men, young women, and non-binary young people, with most participants being white British and engaged in mainstream state education. I have also worked with socio-economically privileged young people in the independent school sector and with socio-economically and ethnically diverse young people in underprivileged areas and schools. While most of the young people identified as heterosexual, I have also engaged with young people identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual and other sexualities (LGB+).[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref4">1</reflink>]</p> <p>Focusing on the legislative and educational context in England, I consider the conceptual, theoretical and pedagogical implications of the findings, drawing also on the wider literature. I mostly examine what I have heard from adolescent boys about consent in heterosexual interactions, because of the emphasis on heterosexual boys potentially holding problematic beliefs and attitudes about consent and, in turn, being a risk <emph>to</emph> girls and others because of their sexual consent practices (Phipps et al. [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref5">69</reflink>]). The gendered power dynamics that shape heterosexual consent cultures have been identified as potentially constraining and jeopardising the operation of free choice for heterosexual young people and so it is these cultures I pay particular attention to in this article. I note that representations and discourses of consent are present in domains beyond law and education, including, for example, media which is part of the cultural resources that young people may draw upon as they make meaning about consent (see Jackson and Scott [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref6">41</reflink>]; Setty [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref7">77</reflink>]). Space precludes full consideration of such domains, but I do not downplay their significance as part of a genuinely ecological approach to understanding young people's sexual consent cultures and which, in turn, should form part of educational policy and practice (see Albury [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref8">2</reflink>]; Buckingham [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref9">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>By drawing on the voices of boys, I aim to complicate the idea that boys are simply poor communicators or seek to circumvent responsibility for heterosexual consent by claiming disparate communication styles between girls and boys. The boys I have spoken to reproduce these narratives but deeper engagement with what they say about so-called 'grey areas' of consent suggests that some form of 'miscommunication' may underpin some, albeit not all, experiences of sexual harm. I have hitherto avoided giving credence to the oft-critiqued 'miscommunication model' of consent. Yet, the normalisation of non-verbal and indirect consent communication in young people's sexual cultures creates ambiguity and a reliance on 'signals' (Muehlenhard et al. [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref10">62</reflink>]). Meanings and interpretations of these signals reflect and reinforce wider gender norms, which are internalised into 'sexual scripts' for consent (see Jackson and Scott [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref11">41</reflink>]). There arises the possibility of one person believing consent was present while the other felt violated or, moreover, one or both parties agreeing to unwanted sexual activity. Problems with or constraints upon consent communication may result in unintended sexual harm whereby the causes encompass but transcend individual and interpersonal-level processes and relate to the sociocultural conditions in which consent is defined and experienced.</p> <p>Young people's problems articulating and interpreting consent may not arise from malintent but from the need to develop and practice the socio-emotional skills and literacy required to navigate gendered pressures, expectations, and power dynamics within heterosexual interactions (see Powell [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref12">71</reflink>]). Education on consent should, therefore, acknowledge that young people – including adolescent boys – may consider the nature of consent communication to create risks of sexual harm. It must then focus on skills and literacy while critically deconstructing the gendered (hetero)sexual scripts and contextual contingencies shaping how consent is communicated, including through 'signals'. It should involve the active participation of young people whereby they identify the interpersonal and sociocultural conditions and power dynamics that constrain consent.</p> <hd id="AN0181550274-3">Defining consent</hd> <p>Consent has been described as an 'internal state of willingness', 'an act of explicitly agreeing to something', and 'behaviour that someone else interprets as willingness' (Muehlenhard et al. [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref13">62</reflink>], 462). Consent may be communicated directly, indirectly, verbally and/or non-verbally (Beres [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref14">8</reflink>]). While perhaps not an unreasonable starting point, there arise complexities regarding how, in practice, consent and refusals are or are not communicated, what, exactly, is experienced and interpreted as willingness, and whether and how willingness (or lack of) is associated with explicit agreement.</p> <p>'Explicit agreement' suggests consent must be directly/verbally given and should not be assumed by the apparent absence of a refusal (see Beres [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref15">8</reflink>]). These principles underpin the 'affirmative consent model', which requires the initiators of sex to secure verbal agreement for sex, whereby 'no means no' but also anything less than 'yes' does not constitute consent. Affirmative consent is described as offering freedom from force and coercion through a sex positive 'eroticisation' of consent as the basis for mutually wanted sex (Mueller and Peterson [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref16">63</reflink>]) to which, Piemonte et al. ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref17">70</reflink>]) found, young people may be receptive. Yet, many young people nevertheless interpret the absence of a 'no' or 'no response' signals as passive and non-explicit indicators of consent, and indirect and nonverbal consent communication predominate within young people's sexual cultures (Righi et al. [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref18">73</reflink>]).</p> <p>The requirement for free and informed choice, given with capacity, is upheld in law in England and Wales (Sexual Offences Act 2003). Legally, initiators need only to have a <emph>reasonable belief</emph> that consent has been given and it does not necessitate explicit verbal agreement/assent but any behaviour that could reasonably be interpreted as consent (Munro [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref19">64</reflink>]). Schools in England must teach young people this law but often also implore them to use direct, verbal communication and not to proceed with sexual activity unless a clear 'yes' has been provided to the initiator (Setty [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref20">75</reflink>]; Gilbert [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref21">33</reflink>]; Whittington [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref22">84</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181550274-4">'Free choice' in conditions of gender inequality</hd> <p>Feminist scholars concerned with the conditions in which consent is formulated, enacted and interpreted have critiqued the emphasis on free choice in so-called 'liberal' models of consent. Some suggest that in patriarchal society there may be no such thing as consent, because (hetero)sex is rooted in male power and dominance over women which precludes women from exercising free choice (MacKinnon [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref23">54</reflink>]; Morgan [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref24">61</reflink>]). From this perspective, there is a distinction between sexual activity as lawful or unlawful and the wider gendered sexual scripts that render redundant the idea of free choice in heterosexual relations (Chamallas [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref25">18</reflink>]). Going beyond individual agency and responsibility for consent, Munro ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref26">64</reflink>]) argues that models of consent must address how heterosexual relational power dynamics at least <emph>constrain</emph> the scope for free and self-determined agency, which may compromise, albeit not completely invalidate, any consent given. Barker ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref27">4</reflink>]), likewise, suggests that any conceptualisation of consent must be 'sex critical' and account for the sociocultural expectations placed on women to consent irrespective of what they personally want.</p> <p>Primoratz ([<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref28">72</reflink>]) critiques such perspectives for suggesting that consent given in conditions of inequality is inherently illegitimate. He argues that mutuality is impossible to mandate, given sex is unlikely to always be mutual and will inevitably be shaped by extrinsic factors. Hand ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref29">36</reflink>]) questions the relationship between mutuality and harm and contends that sexual activity may take place in contexts whereby the parties are insufficiently acquainted for mutuality. From Hand's perspective, any demand for mutuality may be normalising regarding the condoned situational and interpersonal contexts for sex and, therefore, unjust. At issue, I suggest, is the legitimacy of formal institutions – be that law or education – to mandate the conditions under which consent is valid and invalid.</p> <p>Yet, decontextualised conceptualisations of consent (see Gilbert [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref30">33</reflink>]) are themselves, potentially extra-legally, unjust because sexual harm may arise from 'complied with' sexual activity particularly when compliance occurs within an unequal distribution of power. Consent education may, therefore, need to address the conditions required for agentic and self-determined – or 'empowered' (see Munro [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref31">64</reflink>]) – consent. Here, consent exists along a continuum whereby wanting/desire, willingness and agreement may not always align, including due to the presence of proximal, distal, direct, and/or indirect pressure (Beres [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref32">10</reflink>]; Lim and Roloff [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref33">52</reflink>]; Whittington [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref34">84</reflink>]). Internal consent is distinct from external consent; the former pertains to feelings of willingness (albeit not necessarily wanting/desire), while the latter is about how consent is enacted and communicated (Muehlenhard et al. [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref35">62</reflink>]). Coercion – including consent to unwanted sexual activity – may be social, insofar as it relates to wider relational and cultural demands and expectations in absence of direct interpersonal force or pressure (see Jones, Milnes, and Turner-Moore [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref36">43</reflink>]). It may be difficult for initiators to identify internal consent (Beres [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref37">8</reflink>]) and, therefore, unjust to legally require them to do so (Gavey [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref38">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>The inadequacies of the law in settling, or being able to settle, these complexities underpinned the rise, actions and demands of the #MeToo movement. While criticised for creating due process risks for men and reifying women as vulnerable to sexual harm, proponents contend that #MeToo inspired a discussion about sex that may not be criminal but is experienced as violating or otherwise harmful (Cooper [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref39">20</reflink>]; Cossman [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref40">21</reflink>]). Cooper ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref41">20</reflink>]) suggests it challenged the power of the law to determine what is acceptable and who is responsible and reframed consent 'in terms of the ethicality of sexual interactions; in the language of respect and desire', not necessarily expanding the law but identifying the need/potential for sociocultural change.</p> <p>For young people in England, a demand for change in youth sexual consent cultures was evidenced by the #Everyone's Invited movement, which involved thousands of young people submitting testimonials of their experiences of sexual harassment and sexual violence in schools across England. Girls were disproportionately likely to describe being affected by such experiences, while boys were involved in causing harm to girls both online and offline and as individuals and in groups. #Everyone's Invited sent shockwaves throughout England and led to an official report detailing the extent of the problem (Ofsted [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref42">66</reflink>]). While #Everyone's Invited and the subsequent Ofsted review generated extensive media coverage and public and political concern, the Women's and Equalities Committee has already identified sexual harassment and sexual violence in schools as a problem back in 2016. The Committee recommended that schools address the underlying gender and sexual norms and inequalities via early preventative interventions before they become entrenched in patterns of abusive behaviour. The report informed the development of the DfE's RSE guidance for schools, which states that schools must address the wider sociocultural attitudes and practices that underpin sexual violence and harassment (Department for Education [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref43">27</reflink>]). While young people are, therefore, to be socialised as citizens with knowledge of the law on consent, the law represents a <emph>minimum standard</emph>, rather than final arbiter, of ethical sexual activity (see Beres [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref44">10</reflink>]). To address sexual harm, education must also address, what Hirsch et al. ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref45">39</reflink>]) describe as, young people's 'sexual citizenship' in terms of the normative contexts that shape agency, autonomy, and self-determination vis-à-vis consent.</p> <hd id="AN0181550274-5">Young people's gendered sexual consent cultures</hd> <p>Extensive studies suggest young people's sexual consent cultures are shaped by gender norms and expectations. While able to define consent in the abstract, Coy et al. ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref46">23</reflink>]) found that young people typically assess whether hypothetical sexual interactions as consensual or non-consensual based on gendered sexual double standards. These double standards pertain to the normalisation, even celebration, of male sexual desire and pursuit of sex, and the judgement and shame of women for sexual behaviour (Coy et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref47">24</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref48">23</reflink>]; Hyde et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref49">40</reflink>]; Marston and King [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref50">59</reflink>]). Burkett and Hamilton ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref51">14</reflink>]) found that young women experience a tension managing post-feminist demands to be available and responsive to (hetero)sex while managing reputational risks. Their supposed preference for non-verbal and indirect consent communication has been attributed to a desire to avoid looking 'too willing' (Marston and King [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref52">59</reflink>]), while any resistance is, in turn, interpreted as a reputation management tactic rather than genuine non-consent (Jozkowski et al. [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref53">47</reflink>]; Jozkowski and Peterson [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref54">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>These sexual double standards normalise male pushiness for sex and the responsibilisation of young women as 'gatekeepers' of consent (Coy et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref55">23</reflink>], Hyde et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref56">40</reflink>]; Muehlenhard et al. [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref57">62</reflink>]; Powers-; Albanesi [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref58">1</reflink>]). In research with adolescents, Jones, Milnes, and Turner-Moore ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref59">43</reflink>]) found that heterosexual 'initiator-gatekeeper' power dynamics are primarily shaped by gender; initiators were deemed inherently powerful and gatekeepers less powerful, with boys being powerful because of their normative role as initiators. While some boys felt that girls are powerful because they 'gatekeep' and, therefore, make the final decision as to whether sex happens or not, gatekeepers were typically defined as less powerful. The initiator-gatekeeper dynamic was also inflected by other relational and social factors and Jones, Milnes, and Turner-Moore ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref60">43</reflink>], 10) conclude that intersectional power dynamics meant 'that roles within sexual encounters were constructed ... as non-consensually assumed, rather than negotiated'.</p> <p>Most of the boys I have spoken to in schools in England about the education they have received on consent believe that <emph>some</emph> boys may directly pressure and coerce girls for sex and knowingly engage in unwanted sexual activity. They described these boys as 'bad', over-sexualised, and 'out of control' when aroused (Setty [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref61">76</reflink>]). Most distanced themselves from such boys, yet sometimes firmly, but more often implicitly, held girls responsible for resisting. While they claimed not to want to harm girls, they were concerned about inadvertently perpetrating non-consensual sex. They felt they might not realise if a girl is not consenting either because girls are, supposedly, poor communicators or they, as boys, may 'lose control' due to arousal and stop paying attention to cues. These boys may simply be using miscommunication and the male sex drive as an excuse (see O'Byrne, Rapley, and Hansen [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref62">65</reflink>], 2010). However, as I elaborate below, interpersonal and sociocultural pressures and expectations may constrain consent communication in ways that create risks of unintended non-consensual sex.</p> <hd id="AN0181550274-6">(Non-)Consent and sexual harm</hd> <p>Heterosexual gender dynamics may explain why girls and women are disproportionately likely to experience non-consensual or unwanted sex (e.g. Barter et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref63">5</reflink>]; Berelowitz et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref64">7</reflink>]; Beckett et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref65">6</reflink>]), while young men use (and normalise the use of) coercive tactics and techniques with young women (e.g. Teten et al. [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref66">82</reflink>]). Gender norms may, furthermore, disadvantage boys and men because their consent is always assumed (Muehlenhard et al. [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref67">62</reflink>]). Some young men report being sexually assaulted (Peterson et al. [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref68">68</reflink>]) and may agree to unwanted sex because they feel awkward or uncomfortable about refusing (O'Sullivan and Rice Allgeier [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref69">67</reflink>]) including due to external pressures to conform to dominant expectations regarding masculinity (Vannier and O'Sullivan [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref70">83</reflink>]). Boys I have spoken to are concerned about experiencing unwanted sex, but typically deem themselves responsible for obtaining consent, even when not initiating (Setty [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref71">76</reflink>]). Some related this to how consent is taught in school (i.e. that they are responsible for obtaining it), while others said it arises because, whoever initiates, they are more powerful than girls, so even when initiating, girls may be ambivalent or otherwise vulnerable, thus it is incumbent on boys to ensure girls are genuinely consenting.</p> <p>Conceptualising consent as a transaction may delimit scope to recognise boys and young men beyond the role of initiator or of having unwanted sexual experiences. It also raises the prospect of sexual activity occurring that is unwanted by both parties if each agrees to unwanted sex, or sex about which they feel ambivalent. Boys have, for example, told me that they may agree to, or even initiate, unwanted sex because of the norm that boys <emph>always</emph> want sex and so their female partner would be offended if they said no or do not initiate (Setty [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref72">76</reflink>]). Social norms (the male sex drive), interpersonal concerns (not offending one's partner), and personal goals (retaining the relationship with the girl) shape this understanding of agreement to unwanted sex. Gender norms are, therefore, 'made real' through (inter)personal processes of internalisation and enactment (see Jackson and Scott [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref73">41</reflink>]). While idealised, or 'hegemonic', masculinity may act as a powerful norm, boys may feel ambivalent about it (inter)personally (see Frosh, Phoenix, and Pattman [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref74">31</reflink>]). Heterosexualised 'sex talk' and ensuing coercive sexual practices may nevertheless be normalised within adolescent male peer cultures and reward economies (see Flood [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref75">30</reflink>]). Hence, boys may pursue sex that is personally unwanted, about which they feel ambivalent, and/or is unwanted by girls because of the social capital it provides (see Jones, Milnes, and Turner-Moore [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref76">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>There ensues some 'power' ostensibly for young men within their male peer cultures, at the expense of young women. Yet, boys articulate a conundrum; some have told me that all they <emph>really</emph> want is a 'nice' relationship and feel inexperienced, nervous and unskilled in heterosexual relationships (Setty [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref77">76</reflink>]). Moreover, while hegemonic masculinity may be a construct around which boys organise their subjectivities (Frosh et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref78">31</reflink>]), it nevertheless feels unattainable to some boys who, in turn, feel at risk from the social policing of masculinity (Setty [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref79">74</reflink>]). Girls then become symbols in male peer groups which, while potentially derogatory and misogynistic, involve performances that may not align with personal subjectivity (Setty [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref80">76</reflink>]). Some boys show critical awareness of the implications for developing positive and healthy relationships with girls. Others, however, articulate oppositionality to girls who they deem the source of the problems they face through being <emph>different</emph> in their supposed nature and intent (see Frosh et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref81">31</reflink>]), which is discussed further below.</p> <hd id="AN0181550274-7">Sexual harm and (un)intentional violations: the possibilities for miscommunication or misinte...</hd> <p>The 'miscommunication model' of sexual violence, attributed to Tannen ([<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref82">81</reflink>]), holds that a 'dichotomy in conversation style exists between the sexes, making miscommunication almost inevitable ... neither the man nor the woman is able to interpret the other's verbal and non-verbal cues accurately' (O'Byrne, Rapley, and Hansen [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref83">65</reflink>], 134). The model implies that miscommunication is a problem for heterosexual partners and, moreover, that there is not necessarily malice or inherent deficiency on the part of the man or woman but relates to fundamental differences in communication styles. Yet, given refusals are 'dis-preferred actions' – particularly for young women who experience ambivalence and feelings of obligation – evidence suggests they are typically performed in line with normative cultural performances for refusals, which are often indirect and nonverbal, and are legible to young men (Kitzinger and Frith [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref84">50</reflink>]; O'Byrne, Rapley, and Hansen [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref85">65</reflink>]). Following on, Hansen, O'Byrne, and Rapley ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref86">37</reflink>], 48) describe miscommunication as a 'rape myth' because 'young men's claims to insufficient knowledge' are impossible to sustain when 'drawing attention to the shared commonsensical knowledge of how everyday refusals are normatively accomplished ... '.</p> <p>Miscommunication may, resultantly, be an excuse proffered by those who knowingly or recklessly violate someone's boundaries. Alternatively, I would posit that young people are experiencing and navigating ambivalence and ambiguity in their sexual consent cultures (Beres [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref87">10</reflink>]; Muehlenhard et al. [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref88">62</reflink>]). In the absence of direct/verbal communication, each party is trying to infer what is wanted by the other and, moreover, to avoid what Hardesty et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref89">38</reflink>]) describe as the 'social blunder' of directly asking for consent too soon or in the wrong way. There is vulnerability entailed in sequential verbal consent that can be avoided through nonverbal initiations (Magnusson and Stevanovic [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref90">55</reflink>]). What 'counts' as a discursive performance of consent then goes beyond the directly verbal (Hardesty et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref91">38</reflink>]) and ambiguity may itself support joint control between partners if predicated upon a lack of assumed consent (Magnusson and Stevanovic [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref92">55</reflink>]). While acknowledging ambiguity does not, therefore, justify sexual assault, if ambiguity involves a reliance on gendered sexual scripts (Kubota and Nakazawa [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref93">51</reflink>]) it may create the possibility of unintended violations that reflect and reinforce wider norms and patterns of gender inequality.</p> <p>It seems that young men are concerned about the risks of perpetrating non-consensual sex due to the distinctions between affirmative consent standards and their actual consent practices (Hirsch et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref94">39</reflink>]). Young adults nevertheless suggest that it is often 'obvious' whether or not someone is consenting (Beres [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref95">10</reflink>]) and so direct/verbal communication is not usually necessary (Muehlenhard et al. [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref96">62</reflink>]). There arises a contradiction here. The adolescents I have spoken to do not even claim to consider it obvious; instead, the emphasis on girls being responsible for 'saying no' in the face of pushy and over-aroused boys appears more to be a hypothetical disavowal of responsibility by boys, and a claim of agency by girls, amidst ambiguity and ambivalence about consent. Among boys, it seemed to reflect an exaggerated articulation of their anxieties about – often hypothetical, given their professed inexperience – (hetero)sexual interactions (Setty [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref97">76</reflink>]).</p> <p>The persistence of gendered sexual scripts may explain why indirect and behavioural cues may be 'obvious' but it does not resolve the potential for non-consensual sex because, whether direct or indirect, any cues may not necessarily reflect internal consent, including dynamically within sexual encounters (see Hirsch et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref98">39</reflink>]). Several young people have, essentially, told me that 'yes may not always mean yes', – insofar as external consent (the 'yes') may not mean that the person internally <emph>felt</emph> 'yes' – due to social and interpersonal pressures and the difficulties of refusing unwanted sex. A further problem relates to the conceptualisation of consent as a discrete transactional exchange rather than a continuous process of (re)formulation, (re)articulation and (re)interpretation (Muehlenhard et al. [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref99">62</reflink>]). I have heard from young people that not only is it difficult to refuse at first but also to later withdraw consent and, despite what they have been taught, consent is rarely 'checked' on as sexual activity progresses (Setty [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref100">76</reflink>]).</p> <p>Gender norms and sexual scripts may then be used to interpret what is happening and what individuals are or may be thinking and feeling. Gray ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref101">35</reflink>]), for instance, found young adults interpret 'signals' not as consent but of potential interest in sex and young men may <emph>hope</emph> for sex based on these signals while not assuming consent. The boys I have spoken to likewise read sexual interest from signals, including in rudimentary and sometimes sexist ways. There appear to be 'unwritten rules' shaping these processes beyond the 'formal rules' embodied within law and affirmative consent. For example, transitioning from a social to a private setting is often interpreted as willingness among both young men and young women (Jozkowski and Willis [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref102">49</reflink>]) and previous sexual activity with a partner ('sexual precedent') is associated with less self-reported use of consent cues, perhaps because of assumed tacit knowledge about what is and is not consented to (Malachi and Jozkowski [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref103">56</reflink>]).</p> <p>The issue here may not, however, be the use of signals or contextual cues <emph>per se</emph> but how they are identified, given meaning, and interpreted in a gendered sociocultural context and if and how they create dynamics of expectation and obligation. It may not, for example, be a problem for flirting and agreeing to go to someone's bedroom to be interpreted as sexual willingness. It may, however, be a problem if such acts oblige a person to engage in sexual activity, limit their right to refuse or withdraw, and/or make them responsible for unwanted sex (see Hardesty et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref104">38</reflink>]). Interpreting cues may be difficult for some young people because feelings of wanting and willingness may change in ways shaped by the interpersonal and sociocultural context at play, and these feelings may be difficult to identify and articulate (Hardesty et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref105">38</reflink>]; Hirsch et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref106">39</reflink>]). A lack of (inter)personal skills and literacy may lead some young people to over-emphasise when and how someone can be deemed <emph>responsible</emph> for whatever cues are given off (see Beres [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref107">9</reflink>]) rather than how to (inter)personally explore and establish what is wanted and agreed to.</p> <hd id="AN0181550274-8">Consent and intoxication</hd> <p>Challenges in identifying and communicating internal and external consent may be exacerbated by intoxication through by alcohol and/or other drugs. At issue is whether any ostensible external consent reflects internal consent and is given with capacity (Smith, Kolokotroni, and Turner-Moore [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref108">79</reflink>]). Internal feelings after consuming alcohol can be interpreted as willingness and desire (Jozkowski et al. [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref109">47</reflink>]) and alcohol use is associated with perceptions of sexual availability among both men and women (Jozkowski, Manning, and Hunt [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref110">45</reflink>]; Muehlenhard et al. [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref111">62</reflink>]). Alcohol consumption is, however, also associated with reduced feelings of safety and comfort during sex and less use of consent cues (Jozkowski and Wiersma [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref112">48</reflink>]). Smith, Kolokotroni, and Turner-Moore ([<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref113">79</reflink>]) identify a problem of expectation and assumed consent in contexts involving alcohol or drug use. They suggest that capacity to make sexual decisions must be addressed when considering such contexts.</p> <p>Studies identify that young people perceive alcohol/drug-use to <emph>compromise</emph> but not inherently negate internal consent, depending on the degree of intoxication (Carline, Gunby, and Taylor [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref114">17</reflink>]; Debby et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref115">25</reflink>]; Shumlich and Fisher [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref116">78</reflink>]). Yet, perceptions of capacity and labelling of sexual experiences as consensual persist even with high levels of intoxication (Drouin et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref117">28</reflink>]) and subsequent memory loss (Matthew et al. [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref118">60</reflink>]), including among adolescents (Coleman and Cater [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref119">19</reflink>]). While those in established relationships tend not to label sexual activity when intoxicated as non-consensual (Malachi, Marcantonio, and Jozkowski [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref120">57</reflink>]), those who engage in sexual activity with new or casual partners after consuming alcohol describe less use of consent cues (Jozkowski et al. [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref121">47</reflink>]). Among those having sex with established partners, alcohol use was associated with less use of active consent communication and an over-reliance on or interpretation of tacit knowledge that the sex is consensual (Marcantonio, Willis, and Jozkowski [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref122">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>Alcohol consumption and intoxication are implicated in sexual assault (e.g. Antonia et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref123">3</reflink>]) Among 18–19-year-old Norwegian young people, Stefansen, Roar Frøyland, and Overlien ([<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref124">80</reflink>]) found sexual assault when intoxicated may be less about intentional perpetration tactics employed to coerce or exploit intoxicated victims, but more about, what they term, 'sexually violent effervescence' or 'emotionally charged collective atmospheres'. They argue that normative spaces of intoxicated sexual activity and, in turn, sexual assault take place give rise to 'chaotic sexual interactions that somehow go wrong' (p.1384). While participants may attribute non-consensual sex within these contexts to the male sex drive and pursuit of opportunities for sex, Stefansen, Roar Frøyland, and Overlien ([<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref125">80</reflink>]) attribute it to 'the permissiveness of the situation and the difficulties involved in engaging in drunk sex'. Some of the boys I have spoken to indeed relate their concerns about alcohol-involved sexual activity, particularly 'casual' intoxicated sex at 'parties', to the constraints on internal and external consent that they perceive to exist within these contexts. As Stefansen, Roar Frøyland, and Overlien ([<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref126">80</reflink>]) found, they rationalised these concerns through narratives that over-aroused boys may 'take advantage' and unintentionally 'violate' a girl. They believed that intoxicated sex is not inherently non-consensual, but that consent is compromised, particularly between new/casual partners.</p> <p>Debby et al. ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref127">25</reflink>]) suggest that rather than telling young people that intoxication always and immediately invalidates consent, a more nuanced approach is required that addresses the nature of choice when intoxicated. Echoing Stefansen, Roar Frøyland, and Overlien ([<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref128">80</reflink>]) suggestion of sexually violent effervescence, they emphasise the relationship between pleasure and alcohol-involved sex. Thus, while I have observed young people being taught that intoxicated casual sex is <emph>dangerous</emph> for consent, it is necessary to explore <emph>why</emph> it is dangerous, what constitutes danger, and how to create safety rather than mandate avoidance of particular scenarios, which may ultimately be ineffective if young people deem such scenarios normative, exciting, and/or pleasurable (Cameron-Lewis and Allen [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref129">16</reflink>]; Demant and Bruvik Heinskou [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref130">26</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181550274-9">Consent as a 'negotiated transaction': suspicion, hostility and 'false accusations'</hd> <p>A current – albeit longstanding – narrative frames boys and men as 'under attack' from feminist-inspired attempts to reconceptualise heterosexual gender relations and, therefore, as vulnerable parties (see Coston and Kimmel [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref131">22</reflink>]; Gotell and Dutton [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref132">34</reflink>]; Jaki et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref133">42</reflink>]). Several boys I have spoken to believe, for example, that the law would be 'against them' if a girl says that sexual activity was non-consensual (Setty [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref134">75</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref135">76</reflink>]). They told me that girls are 'instantly believed', although some felt the justice process is more fraught and uncertain for both parties. Those with concerns referred to social media content regarding personal stories of, and general prevalence claims about, 'false accusations', and I have heard from girls who 'sympathise' with such concerns (Setty [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref136">75</reflink>]).</p> <p>While such perceptions should not be endorsed, not least because even a brief perusal of the data on rape complaints and convictions suggests they are inaccurate, there are issues to take into account, including boys' and young men's experiences of victimisation (Gotell and Dutton [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref137">34</reflink>]) and the ways that sociocultural power may not always be felt or experienced at the subjective level (Setty [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref138">74</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref139">76</reflink>]; Jackson and Scott [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref140">41</reflink>]). While 'false accusations' may be rare, some boys I have spoken to describe not just intentional 'lies', but a concern that girls may not want sex but feel pressured or believe they communicated their non-consent in ways the boy did not identify (Setty [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref141">76</reflink>]). They also felt that girls may regret sex and so (re)construct the experience as non-consensual. These boys felt they may genuinely believe sex was consensual while the girl genuinely felt otherwise.</p> <p>The term 'false accusation', seems, therefore, to represent a discursive label for complexities that are not captured under, and may be exacerbated by, binary, transactional models of consent. While any accompanying sentiments of hostility and distrust towards girls may constitute resistance or entitlement, it additionally or alternatively underscores the need for a model of consent – or an account of heterosexual interactions more generally – that goes beyond transactional initiator-gatekeeper framings (Gilbert [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref142">33</reflink>]; Whittington [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref143">84</reflink>]). Furthermore, if non-consensual sex is deemed to arise from a 'willingness to cross boundaries and injure others' (Beres [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref144">11</reflink>], 236), then experiences of sexual harm or violation in absence of malintent may not be recognised. I have indeed recently heard from young people about how a binary of 'true' or 'false' attributed to an allegation of sexual harm means that if the allegation is not upheld (e.g. by school or police) then the complainant <emph>must</emph> have been, and is treated as having been, lying.</p> <hd id="AN0181550274-10">Conclusion: implications for consent education</hd> <p>What then is the purpose of educating young people about consent – is it an end or a means to an end? In other words, do young people need to know what consent is, as codified in law, to be <emph>socialised</emph> as citizens (see Emily and Dobson [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref145">29</reflink>])? If consent is meant to help address sexual harm and promote positive and healthy relationships, then educating about legal (and/or affirmative) consent may not suffice. Beres ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref146">10</reflink>]) argues that abstract and applied versions of consent are not necessarily the same. While perhaps an extra-legal endeavour, educational interventions must address why, in what contexts, and with what consequences, sexual activity takes place (see Hirsch et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref147">39</reflink>]). Mutuality need not be mandated; yet, as Hand ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref148">36</reflink>], 678) identifies, there is a 'messiness of moral life' whereby 'the onus [is] on moral agents to exercise judgment'. Young people need to identify what moral judgement is required and how to exercise it, including when different dynamics of mutuality co-exist. A boy may, for example, bond with male peers based upon mutual objectification of a girl that creates sexual harm for that girl. Over-simplified and over-rationalised demands for direct verbal consent communication does not resolve such dynamics (see Bragg et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref149">12</reflink>]; Gilbert [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref150">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>Whether risk-oriented, sex positive, skills-based and/or sociocultural, educational interventions must take a participatory approach to programme development, teaching and learning (Bragg et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref151">12</reflink>]; Burton et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref152">15</reflink>]). Sociocultural interventions may, for instance, be critical and social justice oriented, while not necessarily addressing the norms that matter to, nor in ways that resonate with, young people. Likewise, skills-based interventions must relate to the realities of young people's lives and feel realistic to apply. I have observed boys offer nuanced contributions to discussions in consent lessons, for example regarding power dynamics or the nature of consent communication. Many teachers then overlaid these contributions with implorations that 'there are no grey areas', and told them that they must obtain a direct yes before embarking on sexual activity. At best, such instruction does not address boys' concerns, at worst, it may encourage a persistent pursuit of a 'yes' including through pressure whereby 'yes' is interpreted to validate sexual activity as consensual regardless of the force employed to obtain it (Setty [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref153">76</reflink>]).</p> <p>'Sex positive' may, furthermore, be better than 'risk-oriented' consent education (Burton et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref154">15</reflink>]) but requires engaging with meanings and experiences of pleasure and desire, dynamics of expectation and obligation and, in turn, the conditions required for sex positivity (see Jozkowski [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref155">44</reflink>]). Pleasure is, furthermore, not necessarily distinct from risk, insofar as pleasure may create or derive from risk (see Cameron-Lewis and Allen [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref156">16</reflink>]; Demant and Bruvik Heinskou [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref157">26</reflink>]). Sex and intoxication, including in contexts such as parties, creates complexities around perceived willingness, loosened inhibitions, obligations, and less resistance to pressure (Muehlenhard et al. [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref158">62</reflink>]). Yet, it may also be the very lack of certainty and rationality that gives sexual activity its excitement. While entitlement and obligation – or assumed consent (see Hardesty et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref159">38</reflink>]) – is a problem, this does not negate the feelings of excitement and pleasure.</p> <p>Lastly, this article has focused on gendered and heterosexualised dynamics of pleasure, power, risk, and reward in young people's sexual consent cultures. Gender identity among young people, and in schools, is in flux, with some, perhaps even many, young people identifying in ways contrary to and beyond gender binaries and biological sex, at least some of the time. There ensue questions regarding the nature and meaning and power within non-binary and non-heterosexual contexts. Power dynamics may apply to consent practices and cultures among LGBT+ youth in ways that differ from the gendered and heterosexualised patterns discussed in this article.</p> <hd id="AN0181550274-11">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0181550274-12"> <title> Note </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref4" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> LGB+ refers to lesbian, gay, bisexual and other non-heterosexual identities (e.g. asexual, pansexual).</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0181550274-13"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Albanesi, H. P. 2009. " Eschewing Sexual Agency: A Gender Subjectivity Approach." Race, Gender &amp; Class 16 (1/2): 102 – 132.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref8" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Albury, K. 2013. " Young People, Media and Sexual Learning: Rethinking Representation." Sex Education 13 (sup1): S32 – S44.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref123" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Antonia, A., T. Zawacki, O. B. Philip, A. Monique Clinton, and P. McAuslan. 2004. " Sexual Assault and Alcohol Consumption: What Do We Know About Their Relationship and What Types of Research are Still Needed? " Aggression and Violent Behavior 9 (3): 271 – 303. doi: 10.1016/S1359-1789(03)00011-9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref27" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Barker, M. 2013. " Consent is a Grey Area? A Comparison of Understandings of Consent in Fifty Shades of Grey and on the BDSM Blogosphere." Sexualities 16 (8): 896 – 914. doi: 10.1177/1363460713508881.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref63" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Barter, C., M. McCarry, D. Berridge, and K. Evans. (2009. " Partner Exploitation and Violence in Teenage Intimate Relationships." https://equation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Partner-Exploitation-and-Violence-in-Teenage-Intimate-Relationships.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref65" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Beckett, H., I. Brodie, F. Factor, M. Melrose, J. J. Pearce, J. Pitts, L. Shuker, and C. Warrington. 2013. "It's Wrong-But You Get Used to it": A Qualitative Study of Gang-Associated Sexual Violence Towards, and Exploitation Of, Young People in England. Luton : University of Bedfordshire.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref64" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Berelowitz, S., C. Firmin, G. Edwards, and S. Gulyurtlu. 2012. " I Thought I Was the Only One. The Only One in the World." In The Office of the Children's Commissioner's Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Gangs and Groups: Interim Report. London : The Office of the Children's Commissioner in England. https://assets.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/wpuploads/2017/07/If_only_someone_had_listened.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref14" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Beres, M. A. 2007. " 'Spontaneous' Sexual Consent: An Analysis of Sexual Consent Literature." Feminism and Psychology 17 (1): 93 – 108. doi: 10.1177/0959353507072914.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref107" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Beres, M. A. 2010. " Sexual Miscommunication? Untangling Assumptions About Sexual Communication Between Casual Sex Partners." Culture, Health &amp; Sexuality 12 (1): 1 – 14. doi: 10.1080/13691050903075226.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beres, M. A. 2014. " Rethinking the Concept of Consent for Anti-Sexual Violence Activism and Education." Feminism &amp; Psychology 24 (3): 373 – 389. doi: 10.1177/0959353514539652.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beres, M. A. 2020. " Perspectives of Rape-Prevention Educators on the Role of Consent in Sexual Violence Prevention." Sex Education 20 (2): 227 – 238. doi: 10.1080/14681811.2019.1621744.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bragg, S., R. Ponsford, R. Meiksin, L. Emmerson, and C. Bonell. 2021. " Dilemmas of School-Based Relationships and Sexuality Education for and About Consent." Sex Education 21 (3): 269 – 283. doi: 10.1080/14681811.2020.1788528.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Buckingham, D. 1998. " Media Education in the UK: Moving Beyond Protectionism." Journal of Communication 48 (1): 33 – 43.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burkett, M., and K. Hamilton. 2012. " Postfeminist Sexual Agency: Young Women's Negotiations of Sexual Consent." Sexualities 15 (7): 815 – 833. doi: 10.1177/1363460712454076.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burton, O., P. Rawstorne, L. Watchirs-Smith, S. Nathan, and A. Carter. 2023. " Teaching Sexual Consent to Young People in Education Settings: A Narrative Systematic Review." Sex Education 23 (1): 18 – 34. doi: 10.1080/14681811.2021.2018676.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cameron-Lewis, V., and L. Allen. 2013. " Teaching Pleasure and Danger in Sexuality Education." Sex Education 13 (2): 121 – 132. doi: 10.1080/14681811.2012.697440.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carline, A., C. Gunby, and S. Taylor. 2018. " Too Drunk to Consent? Exploring the Contestations and Disruptions in Male-Focused Sexual Violence Prevention Interventions." Social and Legal Studies 27 (3): 299 – 322. doi: 10.1177/0964663917713346.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chamallas, M. 1987. " Consent, Equality, and the Legal Control of Sexual Conduct." Southern California Law Review 61 : 777.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coleman, L. M., and S. M. Cater. 2005. " A Qualitative Study of the Relationship Between Alcohol Consumption and Risky Sex in Adolescents." Archives of Sexual Behavior 34 (6): 649 – 661. doi: 10.1007/s10508-005-7917-6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cooper, C. 2018. " Article–Speaking the Unspeakable? Nicola Lacey's Unspeakable Subjects and Consent in the Age Of# MeToo." Feminists@ Law 8 (2). doi: 10.22024/UniKent/03/fal.669.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cossman, B. 2018. " # MeToo, Sex Wars 2.0 and the Power of Law." In Asian Yearbook of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, edited by A. Shahid and J. Rehman, 18 – 37. Leiden, The Netherlands : Brill/Nijhoff.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coston, B. M., and M. Kimmel. 2012. " White Men as the New Victims: Reverse Discrimination Cases and the Men's Rights Movement." Nevada Law Journal 13 (2): 368 – 385.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coy, M., L. Kelly, F. Elvines, M. Garner, and A. Kanyeredzi. 2013. " Sex without Consent, I Suppose That is rape: How Young People in England Understand Sexual Consent." Office of the Children's Commissioner. https://<ulink href="http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Maddy-Coy/publication/320545582%5fSex%5fwithout%5fconsent%5fI%5fsuppose%5fthat%5fis%5frape%5fHow%5fyoung%5fpeople%5fin%5fEngland%5funderstand%5fsexual%5fconsent/links/59eaa5ed0f7e9bfdeb6ccd72/Sex-without-consent-I-suppose-that-is-rape-How-young-people-in-England-understand-sexual-consent.pdf">www.researchgate.net/profile/Maddy-Coy/publication/320545582%5fSex%5fwithout%5fconsent%5fI%5fsuppose%5fthat%5fis%5frape%5fHow%5fyoung%5fpeople%5fin%5fEngland%5funderstand%5fsexual%5fconsent/links/59eaa5ed0f7e9bfdeb6ccd72/Sex-without-consent-I-suppose-that-is-rape-How-young-people-in-England-understand-sexual-consent.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coy, M., K. Lee, L. Kelly, and C. Roach. 2010. A Missing Link?: An Exploratory Study of the Connections Between Non-Consensual Sex and Teenage Pregnancy. London : Child and Woman Abuse Studies Unit (CWASU). https://cwasu.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/A-Missing-Link-An-Exploratory-Study-of-the-Connections-Between-Non-Consensual-Sex-and-Teenage-Pregnancy1.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Debby, H., F. Tsung-Chieh, B. Dodge, and J. Dennis Fortenberry. 2019. " The Alcohol Contexts of Consent, Wanted Sex, Sexual Pleasure, and Sexual Assault: Results from a Probability Survey of Undergraduate Students." Journal of American College Health 67 (2): 144 – 152. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2018.1462827.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Demant, J., and M. Bruvik Heinskou. 2011. " Taking a Chance: Sex, Alcohol and Acquaintance Rape." Young 19 (4): 397 – 415. doi: 10.1177/110330881101900403.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education. 2019. " Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) and Health Education: Statutory Guidance." London: Department for Education. https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/relationships-education-relationships-and-sex-education-rse-and-health-education">www.gov.uk/government/publications/relationships-education-relationships-and-sex-education-rse-and-health-education</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Drouin, M., K. N. Jozkowski, J. Davis, and G. Newsham. 2018. " How Does Alcohol Consumption Affect Perceptions of One's Own and a Drinking Partner's Ability to Consent to Sexual Activity? " The Journal of Sex Research 56 (6): 740 – 753. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2018.1509290.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Emily, S., and E. Dobson. 2023. " Department for Education Statutory Guidance for Relationships and Sex Education in England: A Rights-Based Approach? " Archives of Sexual Behavior 52 (1): 79 – 93. doi: 10.1007/s10508-022-02340-5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flood, M. 2008. " Men, Sex, and Homosociality: How Bonds Between Men Shape Their Sexual Relations with Women." Men and Masculinities 10 (3): 339 – 359.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frosh, S., A. Phoenix, and R. Pattman. 2017. Young Masculinities: Understanding Boys in Contemporary Society. Basingstoke : Palgrave.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gavey, N. 1999. "I Wasn't Raped But." Revisiting Definitional Problems in Sexual Victimization, Ed. S. Lamb., 57 – 81. New York and London : New York University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilbert, J. 2018. " Contesting Consent in Sex Education." Sex Education 18 (3): 268 – 279. doi: 10.1080/14681811.2017.1393407.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gotell, L., and E. Dutton. 2016. " Sexual Violence in the'manosphere': Antifeminist Men's Rights Discourses on Rape." International Journal for Crime, Justice &amp; Social Democracy 5 (2): 65 – 80. doi: 10.5204/ijcjsd.v5i2.310.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gray, J. M. 2015. " What Constitutes a "Reasonable belief" in Consent to Sex? A Thematic Analysis." Journal of Sexual Aggression 21 (3): 337 – 353.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hand, M. 2022. " Consent and Mutuality in Sex Education." Journal of Philosophy of Education 56 (5): 677 – 684. doi: 10.1111/1467-9752.12681.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hansen, S., R. O'Byrne, and M. Rapley. 2010. " Young Heterosexual Men's Use of the Miscommunication Model in Explaining Acquaintance Rape." Sexuality Research and Social Policy 7 (1): 45 – 49. doi: 10.1007/s13178-010-0003-4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hardesty, M., S. R. Young, A. M. McKinnon, A. Merriweather, R. E. Mattson, and S. G. Massey. 2022. " Indiscrete: How Typical College Student Sexual Behavior Troubles Affirmative Consent's Demand for Clear Communication." Sexuality Research and Social Policy 19 (3): 1114 – 1129. doi: 10.1007/s13178-021-00611-9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hirsch, J. S., S. R. Khan, A. Wamboldt, and C. A. Mellins. 2019. " Social Dimensions of Sexual Consent Among Cisgender Heterosexual College Students: Insights from Ethnographic Research." Journal of Adolescent Health 64 (1): 26 – 35. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.06.011.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hyde, A., J. Drennan, E. Howlett, and D. Brady. 2009. " Young Men's Vulnerability in Constituting Hegemonic Masculinity in Sexual Relations." American Journal of Men's Health 3 (3): 238 – 251. doi: 10.1177/1557988308319730.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jackson, S., and S. Scott. 2010. Theorizing Sexuality. Berkshire, England : McGraw-Hill Education (UK).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jaki, S., T. De Smedt, M. Gwóźdź, R. Panchal, A. Rossa, and G. De Pauw. 2019. " Online Hatred of Women in the Incels. Me Forum: Linguistic Analysis and Automatic Detection." Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 7 (2): 240 – 268. doi: 10.1075/jlac.00026.jak.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones, S., K. Milnes, and T. Turner-Moore. 2022. " Doing Things You Don't Wanna do': Young People's Understandings of Power Inequalities and the Implications for Sexual Consent." Journal of Youth Studies Advance Online Publication. 10.1080/13676261.2022.2152317.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jozkowski, K. N. 2015. " Barriers to Affirmative Consent Policies and the Need for Affirmative Sexuality." University of the Pacific Law Review 47 : 741 – 772.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jozkowski, K. N., J. Manning, and M. Hunt. 2018. " Sexual Consent in and Out of the Bedroom: Disjunctive Views of Heterosexual College Students." Women's Studies in Communication 41 (2): 117 – 139. doi: 10.1080/07491409.2018.1470121.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jozkowski, K. N., and Z. D. Peterson. 2013. " College Students and Sexual Consent: Unique Insights." The Journal of Sex Research 50 (6): 517 – 523. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2012.700739.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jozkowski, K. N., Z. D. Peterson, S. A. Sanders, B. Dennis, and M. Reece. 2014. " Gender Differences in Heterosexual College students' Conceptualizations and Indicators of Sexual Consent: Implications for Contemporary Sexual Assault Prevention Education." The Journal of Sex Research 51 (8): 904 – 916. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2013.792326.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jozkowski, K. N., and J. D. Wiersma. 2015. " Does Drinking Alcohol Prior to Sexual Activity Influence College students' Consent? " International Journal of Sexual Health 27 (2): 156 – 174. doi: 10.1080/19317611.2014.951505.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jozkowski, K. N., and M. Willis. 2022. " People Perceive Transitioning from a Social to a Private Setting as an Indicator of Sexual Consent." Psychology and Sexuality 11 (4): 358 – 371. doi: 10.1080/19419899.2020.1769162.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kitzinger, C., and H. Frith. 1999. " Just Say No? The Use of Conversation Analysis in Developing a Feminist Perspective on Sexual Refusal." Discourse and Society 10 (3): 293 – 316. doi: 10.1177/0957926599010003002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kubota, S., and E. Nakazawa. 2022. " Concept and Implications of Sexual Consent for Education: A Systematic Review of Empirical Studies." Sexual and Relationship Therapy 1 – 23. Advanced Online Publication. doi: 10.1080/14681994.2022.2039617.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lim, G. Y., and M. E. Roloff. 1999. " Attributing Sexual Consent." Journal of Applied Communication Research 7 (1): 1 – 23. doi: 10.1080/00909889909365521.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lloyd, J., and V. Bradbury. 2023. " Zero Tolerance to Sexual Harm in Schools–From Broken Rules to Broken Systems." Journal of Sexual Aggression 29 (2): 226 – 242. doi: 10.1080/13552600.2022.2057605.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacKinnon, C. A. 1989. Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Magnusson, S., and M. Stevanovic. 2023. " Sexual Consent as an Interactional Achievement: Overcoming Ambiguities and Social Vulnerabilities in the Initiations of Sexual Activities." Discourse Studies 25 (1): 68 – 88. doi: 10.1177/14614456221119101.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malachi, W., and K. N. Jozkowski. 2019. " Sexual Precedent's Effect on Sexual Consent Communication." Archives of Sexual Behavior 48 (6): 1723 – 1734. doi: 10.1007/s10508-018-1348-7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malachi, W., T. L. Marcantonio, and K. N. Jozkowski. 2021. " Internal and External Sexual Consent During Events That Involved Alcohol, Cannabis, or Both." Sexual Health 18 (3): 260 – 268. doi: 10.1071/SH21015.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marcantonio, T. L., M. Willis, and K. N. Jozkowski. 2022. " Effects of Typical and Binge Drinking on Sexual Consent Perceptions and Communication." Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 48 (3): 273 – 284. doi: 10.1080/0092623X.2021.1986445.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marston, C., and E. King. 2006. " Factors That Shape Young People's Sexual Behaviour: A Systematic Review." The Lancet 368 (9547): 1581 – 1586. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69662-1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Matthew, C., A. Wamboldt, C. Ann Mellins, J. S. Hirsch, and S. R. Khan. 2019. " The Temporal Character of Sexual Consent Among College Students." Human Organization 78 (4): 335 – 344. doi: 10.17730/0018-7259.78.4.335.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morgan, R. 1980. " Theory and Practice: Pornography and Rape." In Take Back the Night: Women on Pornography, edited by L. Liderer, 134 – 140. New York : William Morrow &amp; Co.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muehlenhard, C. L., T. P. Humphreys, K. N. Jozkowski, and Z. D. Peterson. 2016. " The Complexities of Sexual Consent Among College Students: A Conceptual and Empirical Review." The Journal of Sex Research 53 (4–5): 457 – 487. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2016.1146651.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mueller, T. M., and Z. D. Peterson. 2012. " Affirmative Consent and Safer, Hotter Sex." The Journal of Sex Research 49 (2–3): 303 – 304. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2011.607979.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Munro, V. E. 2008. " Constructing Consent: Legislating Freedom and Legitimating Constraint in the Expression of Sexual Autonomy." Akron Law Review 41 : 923 – 956.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Byrne, R., M. Rapley, and S. Hansen. 2006. " 'You Couldn't Say "No", Could you?': Young Men's Understandings of Sexual Refusal." Feminism &amp; Psychology 16 (2): 133 – 154.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ofsted. 2021. " Review of Sexual Abuse in Schools and Colleges." https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-sexualabuse-in-schools-and-colleges/review-of-sexual-abuse-in-schoolsand-colleges">www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-sexualabuse-in-schools-and-colleges/review-of-sexual-abuse-in-schoolsand-colleges</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Sullivan, L. F., and E. Rice Allgeier. 1998. " Feigning Sexual Desire: Consenting to Unwanted Sexual Activity in Heterosexual Dating Relationships." The Journal of Sex Research 35 (3): 234 – 243. doi: 10.1080/00224499809551938.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peterson, Z. D., E. K. Voller, M. A. Polusny, and M. Murdoch. 2011. " Prevalence and Consequences of Adult Sexual Assault of Men: Review of Empirical Findings and State of the Literature." Clinical Psychology Review 31 (1): 1 – 24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phipps, A., J. Ringrose, E. Renold, and C. Jackson. 2018. " Rape Culture, Lad Culture and Everyday Sexism: Researching, Conceptualizing and Politicizing New Mediations of Gender and Sexual Violence." Journal of Gender Studies 27 (1): 1 – 8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Piemonte, J. L., S. Gusakova, M. Nichols, and T. D. Conley. 2022. " Is Consent Sexy? Comparing Evaluations of Written Erotica Based on Verbal Sexual Consent." In Nuances of Sexual Consent, edited by M. Willis, 5 – 27, Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Powell, A. 2008. " Amor Fati? Gender Habitus and Young People's Negotiation of (Hetero) Sexual Consent." Journal of Sociology 44 (2): 167 – 184. doi: 10.1177/1440783308089168.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Primoratz, I. 2001. " Sexual Morality: Is Consent Enough? " Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 4 (3): 201 – 218. doi: 10.1023/A:1011878215852.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Righi, M. K., K. W. Bogen, C. Kuo, and L. M. Orchowski. 2021. " A Qualitative Analysis of Beliefs About Sexual Consent Among High School Students." Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36 (15–16): NP8290 – NP8316. doi: 10.1177/0886260519842855.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Setty, E. 2020. Risk and Harm in Youth Sexting: Young People's Perspectives. London : Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780429277344.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Setty, E. 2021. " Sex and Consent in Contemporary Youth Sexual Culture: The 'Ideals' and the 'Realities'." Sex Education 21 (3): 331 – 346. doi: 10.1080/14681811.2020.1802242.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Setty, E. 2022. " Educating Teenage Boys About Consent: The Law and Affirmative Consent in boys' Socio-Sexual Cultures and Subjectivities." Sex Roles 87 (9): 515 – 535. doi: 10.1007/s11199-022-01335-9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Setty, E. 2023. " Co-Designing Guidance for Relationships and Sex Education to 'Transform School cultures' with Young People in England." Pastoral Care in Education 1 – 19. Advanced Online Publication. doi: 10.1080/02643944.2023.2228804.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shumlich, E. J., and W. A. Fisher. 2020. " An Exploration of Factors That Influence Enactment of Affirmative Consent Behaviors." The Journal of Sex Research 57 (9): 1108 – 1121. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2020.1761937.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, L. A., K. Z. Kolokotroni, and T. Turner-Moore. 2021. " Making and Communicating Decisions About Sexual Consent During Drug-Involved Sex: A Thematic Synthesis." The Journal of Sex Research 58 (4): 469 – 487. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2019.1706072.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stefansen, K., L. Roar Frøyland, and C. Overlien. 2021. " Incapacitated Sexual Assault Among Youths: Beyond the Perpetrator Tactics Framework." Journal of Youth Studies 24 (10): 1373 – 1387. doi: 10.1080/13676261.2020.1844172.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tannen, D. 1992. You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York : Ballantine Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teten, A. L., B. Ball, L. Anne Valle, R. Noonan, and B. Rosenbluth. 2009. " Considerations for the Definition, Measurement, Consequences, and Prevention of Dating Violence Victimization Among Adolescent Girls." Journal of Women's Health 18 (7): 923 – 927. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2009.1515.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vannier, S. A., and L. F. O'Sullivan. 2010. " Sex without Desire: Characteristics of Occasions of Sexual Compliance in Young adults' Committed Relationships." Journal of Sex Research 47 (5): 429 – 439. doi: 10.1080/00224490903132051.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whittington, E. 2021. " Rethinking Consent with Continuums: Sex, Ethics and Young People." Sex Education 21 (4): 480 – 496. doi: 10.1080/14681811.2020.1840343.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Emily Setty</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref145"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref149"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref152"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref155"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1452743 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Young People and Sexual Consent: Contextualising 'Miscommunication' amid 'Grey Areas' of Ambiguity and Ambivalence – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Emily+Setty%22">Emily Setty</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2085-7963">0000-0002-2085-7963</externalLink>) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Sex+Education%3A+Sexuality%2C+Society+and+Learning%22"><i>Sex Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning</i></searchLink>. 2025 25(1):140-155. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 16 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sexuality%22">Sexuality</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Congruence+%28Psychology%29%22">Congruence (Psychology)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interpersonal+Communication%22">Interpersonal Communication</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interpersonal+Relationship%22">Interpersonal Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Influences%22">Social Influences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Power+Structure%22">Power Structure</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sex+Education%22">Sex Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Development%22">Social Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Emotional+Development%22">Emotional Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Bias%22">Gender Bias</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Bias%22">Social Bias</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sexual+Abuse%22">Sexual Abuse</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Violence%22">Violence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adolescents%22">Adolescents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Young+Adults%22">Young Adults</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Geographic Terms Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom+%28England%29%22">United Kingdom (England)</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1080/14681811.2023.2259321 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 1468-1811<br />1472-0825 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Educating young people about sexual consent aims to help them develop healthy relationships and prevent sexual harm. Yet, there remains no consensus on how to define consent nor the connection between consent and sexual harm. This article discusses findings from qualitative research conducted with young people in England that has explored issues of sexual consent. It engages with tensions around the so-called 'grey areas' and oft-critiqued 'miscommunication model' of consent and suggests that some form of 'miscommunication' may underpin some, albeit not all, experiences of sexual harm among young people. Young people may experience problems articulating and interpreting consent not because of malintent or substandard or disparate communication skills but because of interpersonal and sociocultural power dynamics that constrain the communication and operation of consent. Consent education needs, therefore, to support young people develop the socio-emotional skills and literacy required to navigate gendered and heterosexual (inter)personal pressures, expectations, and sexual scripts. It should involve active participation of young people whereby they identify the conditions in which sexual activity unfolds and the power dynamics that constrain the operation of consent. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2024 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1452743 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1452743 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1080/14681811.2023.2259321 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 16 StartPage: 140 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Sexuality Type: general – SubjectFull: Congruence (Psychology) Type: general – SubjectFull: Interpersonal Communication Type: general – SubjectFull: Interpersonal Relationship Type: general – SubjectFull: Social Influences Type: general – SubjectFull: Power Structure Type: general – SubjectFull: Sex Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Social Development Type: general – SubjectFull: Emotional Development Type: general – SubjectFull: Gender Bias Type: general – SubjectFull: Social Bias Type: general – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries Type: general – SubjectFull: Sexual Abuse Type: general – SubjectFull: Violence Type: general – SubjectFull: Adolescents Type: general – SubjectFull: Young Adults Type: general – SubjectFull: United Kingdom (England) Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Young People and Sexual Consent: Contextualising 'Miscommunication' amid 'Grey Areas' of Ambiguity and Ambivalence Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Emily Setty IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Type: published Y: 2025 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 1468-1811 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1472-0825 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 25 – Type: issue Value: 1 Titles: – TitleFull: Sex Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
