Sex and consent in contemporary youth sexual culture: the ‘ideals’ and the ‘realities’

Sexual consent has increasingly become a central component of Relationships and Sex Education. This paper draws upon findings from qualitative research conducted with teenagers in England, which explored their perspectives on consent within their contemporary youth sexual cultures, including in digital (sexting) contexts. The findings suggest that young people’s definitions of consent often did not correspond to the socially- and contextually contingent realities of negotiating and establishing consensual sex(ting). While young people’s contemporary sexual cultures may look somewhat different, longstanding gender norms and sexual scripts shaped their attitudes towards consent. The implications of the findings for RSE are discussed, including the need for more collaborative dialogue and exchange between educators and learners that engages with the situated realities of contemporary youth sexual culture.

"participants had an awareness and understanding of consent... participants conceptualised consent as involving an individual proposing an activity and another responding by giving or refusing consent, and emphasised the importance of free and informed choice... Most participants attributed non-consensual or unwanted sex(ting) to the nature of masculine and feminine sexuality (Coy et al. 2010, 2013). Many normalised the idea that boys have uncontrollable sex drives and will pursue girls for sex, and positioned girls as gatekeepers responsible for resisting boys’ advances and communicating any nonconsent (Burkett and Hamilton 2012; Moore and Rosenthal 1993). This attribution of nonconsensual sex to heterosexual dynamics according an invisibility to the perspectives and experiences of LGBT+ youth. Both heterosexual and LGBT+ participants tended to conceive of LGBT+ dynamics as less problematic for consent. They defined these dynamics as inherently kinder, and more mutual and closely aligned...Participants considered casual sex(ting) riskier for consent due to the intensification of self-interest and responsiveness to social norms and expectations, and the lack of communication and mutuality believed to characterise such contexts. Many felt that boys’ desire for sex and girls’ concerns about pleasing boys and avoiding looking ‘frigid’ trumped more mutual approaches towards negotiating consent. They described feeling less confident to communicate openly and directly in casual contexts, and some felt that sex in relationships involved more communication, mutuality and reciprocity (Carmody 2015). Participants’ definitions of consent were context specific. Open and direct communication seemingly remained difficult in relationships (see Humphreys and Herold 2003). Agreeing to unwanted sex(ting) was, furthermore, normalised as part of relationships. Participants constructed gendered narratives of trust and intimacy, in which particular practices (e.g. unsolicited image-sharing) were defined differently by context (Hayes andDragiewicz 2018). Some girls seemed reluctant to alienate boys, which shaped both their agreement to unwanted sex(ting) and how they positioned themselves with respect to gender equality. As found in previous research, boys tended to conceive of themselves as initiators, while girls seemed more attuned to the conditions in which they gave or refused consent (see Powers-Albanesi 2009). Some boys were worried about consent because of the perceived risk of accusations of non-consensual sex. The supposed unknowability of girls’ desires and girls’ tendency to agree despite a lack of willingness meant that some boys emphasised the need for girls to take greater responsibility for consent. Some placed responsibility on girls to resist even direct force or pressure." (Setty, 2020: 341-2).