Perceived barriers and rewards to sexual consent communication: A qualitative analysis

Abstract

Increasingly, affirmative consent – direct, unambiguous and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity ( Craig & McKinley, 2015 ) – is the standard being adopted by educational institutions in North America ( Bennett, 2016 ). Yet, studies show that most individuals continue to communicate consent through nonresistance ( Jozkowski et al., 2014a ). Given this discrepancy, it is critical to understand what factors prevent individuals from engaging in affirmative consent. Furthermore, a better understanding of the perceived rewards of consent communication could incentivize the adoption of affirmative consent. To understand the range of perceived barriers and rewards, we conducted an online, qualitative study where 231 participants answered two open-ended questions. We used inductive content analysis to categorize participants’ perceptions of sexual consent barriers and rewards into four general content areas: (1) Communication Quality, (2) Relational and Emotional Experiences, (3) Sexual Quality and (4) Safety and Coercion. These perceived rewards and barriers were examined through the lens of the Information-Motivation-Behavioural Skills Model. Participants viewed consent communication not only as a means of ensuring safety but also as away to enhance relational and sexual quality. However, they also perceived barriers in all three of these domains as well as barriers to ensuring that sexual consent communication is fluid and easily understood. These findings provide important avenues for future research investigating how individuals reconcile perceived rewards and costs of affirmative consent communication. We also suggest ways to enhance sexual education by discussing potential rewards and validating the normative nature of fears and anxieties around affirmative consent.

Would a Viable Consent App Create Headaches for Consequentialists?

“…It is a prediction based on the way most people have reacted to consent apps, affirmative consent standards, high-profile sexual assault cases, and the #Metoo movement 9 . Barriers to communication that would establish sexual consent already exist because agents prefer to ‘avoid experiencing negative feelings such as embarrassment, shame, anxiety and guilt’ (Edwards et al ., 2022, p. 2411), so I think it is reasonable to anticipate additional intuitive resistance to a convention that would require significantly more time and formal clarification prior to sexual activity. The comparatively smaller shift to affirmative consent policies has drawn resistance because ‘some maintain that requiring affirmative consent will ruin the mood or spontaneity of a sexual experience’ (Jozkowski, 2016, p. 744).…”

El consentimiento de las relaciones sexuales. Un análisis de su significado y las variables implicadas

“…Investigaciones anteriores sugieren que cuando el consentimiento se expresa en términos más explícitos (es decir, con señales verbales), es más probable que las personas experimenten un encuentro sexual de mayor calidad (JOZKOWSKI, 2013). A pesar de ello, la comunicación no verbal, no suele ser la forma de expresión más habitual, ya que, las personas, sobre todo los jóvenes tienden a creer que la comunicación verbal sobre el sexo es poco realista (JOZKOWSKI et al, 2018;PETERSON et al, 2011) y se percibe cierta incomodidad en esa manera de expresar el consentimiento porque puede arruinar el momento (Curtis & Burnett, 2017;Edwards et al, 2022). Por tanto, el proceso de comunicación sexual inhibe un consentimiento explícito y se focaliza principalmente en señales no verbales o señales verbales implícitas (BALDWIN-WHITE, 2021; WILLIS & JOZKOWSKI, 2021).…”