Computer-Mediated Consent to Sex

Abstract

This paper reports an interview study about how consent to sexual activity is computer-mediated. The study's context of online dating is chosen due to the prevalence of sexual violence, or nonconsensual sexual activity, that is associated with dating app-use. Participants (n=19) represent a range of gender identities and sexual orientations, and predominantly used the dating app Tinder. Findings reveal two computer-mediated consent processes: consent signaling and affirmative consent. With consent signaling, users employed Tinder's interface to infer and imply agreement to sex without any explicit confirmation before making sexual advances in-person. With affirmative consent, users employed the interface to establish patterns of overt discourse around sex and consent across online and offline modalities. The paper elucidates shortcomings of both computer-mediated consent processes that leave users susceptible to sexual violence and envisions dating apps as potential sexual violence prevention solutions if deliberately designed to mediate consent exchange. CCS Concepts: • Human-centered computing → Empirical studies in collaborative and social computing; • Social and professional topics → User Characters → Gender; Sexual orientation

Sexual Interaction in Digital Contexts and Its Implications for Sexual Health: A Conceptual Analysis

“…The digital media user can be in the role of both the victim of non-consensual activities of others (e.g., being urged to participate in unwanted sexing) or the perpetrator (e.g., urging somebody else to participate in unwanted sexting; van Ouytsel et al, 2021 ). The literature describes consensual as well as non-consensual sexual interactions through, via, and with technology (e.g., Zytko et al, 2021 ). Examples of non-consensual interactions are sexual harassment or rape in face-to-face interactions enabled through sex dating apps (e.g., as revealed in the ABC News documentary “Tinder: Investigation reveals the dark side of the dating app”; ABC News In-depth, 2020 ), unwanted initiation of sexual interactions via technology (e.g., webcam exhibitionism in front of children or non-consenting adults; Jones, 2010 ), and violent interactions with technological artifacts (e.g., so-called “rape” of a sex robot; Danaher, 2017 ).…”

Dating Apps Are Used for More Than Dating

“…There has been no research to our knowledge that specifically investigates how PNA users self-present and evaluate interaction goals, particularly ones that go beyond dating, although there is some research that has shed light on self-presentation and evaluation of casual sex goals. Users still commonly carry the view that particular PNAs like Tinder and Grindr are intended for sex [15,25,40,53], and so impressions of sex-related interaction goals may be assumed purely by the platform a user is discovered on [70]. Blackwell and colleagues [9] found that, due to slut shaming (stigma around disclosing casual sex interest), Grindr users sometimes erroneously indicate in their profiles that they are looking for friends.…”

“…For example, Grindr users have interpreted profile content about PrEP use (an HIV preventative medication) to signal desire for unprotected sex [66]. A study of Tinder users found men to interpret myriad types of messages, including the mere existence of a message response, as validation of a user's interest in sex [70].…”

“…Several quantitative studies have reported alarming statistics about PNA-facilitated sexual violence [14,29,30,49,51,52,63]. In a recent qualitative study of Tinder, participants described instances of unwanted sexual touching from users they met for non-sexual reasons; other participants often assumed sexual interest without attempting to clarify [70].…”

Ethical Considerations When Constructing Participatory Design Protocols for Social Robots

“…• Agency -how should consensual sex occur? : One reason sexual violence persists is because of varying conceptions of sexual consent, or the ways in which a person gives and (perceives to) receive agreement to a sexual activity [11]. There is risk of usurping stakeholder agency if the robot participatory design process imposes a particular consent exchange process onto stakeholders that is "desirable" to researchers, but contrary to how stakeholders may envision consensual sex occurring.…”