What is our framework for understanding consent?
We rely on language. Yes grants permission; No denies it. Consent, we are told, is as simple as these two words. A binary so clear, so absolute, there is no room for confusion. Easy, right?
Not quite.
Yes, the supposedly universal arbiter of consent – is rarely as straightforward as it seems. It expands, shifts, and morphs to accommodate the whims of the interpreter. Yes has varying definitions. Silence is Yes. Passivity is Yes. Prior consent is Yes. Sexual experience is Yes. A marriage contract is Yes. Gender nonconformity is Yes. Vulnerability is Yes. Everything can be Yes. Anything can be Yes.
If Yes is a shape-shifter, No is a ghost.
Even when No stands as a formidable presence – looming, undeniable, the elephant in the room – eyes are averted, and indifference prevails. When No is softer, less imposing – it is unabashedly glossed over. And when No exists only in the haunting spaces between words, in the absence of enthusiasm, in the discomfort left unspoken – it is resolutely denied.
All of this is to say: the language of consent is not neutral. It is rigid where it should be nuanced, malleable where it should be firm. Yes is an all-encompassing spirit, ever-expanding; No is frustratingly constricted, barely visible. So, while the Yes/No binary honourably intends to protect bodily autonomy, its failure to account for the complexity of consent achieves the opposite. We have collectively refused to read between the lines, instead reinforcing a language of limitations.
To be clear: Consent is a willing and enthusiastic agreement to participate in any activity – sexual or otherwise. It is not merely the absence of a No but the active presence of a Yes. It is an ongoing dialogue – meaning it can be renegotiated, adjusted, or revoked at any moment, regardless of prior agreement. Consent must also be informed and freely given; coercion, pressure, power imbalances, or impaired judgment (due to intoxication, fear, or external influence) undermine its validity.
Language does not exist in a vacuum.
It is shaped and distorted by the socio-cultural structures we uphold. Marital frameworks continue to enable violence; a spouse, by virtue of spousehood, is assumed to be a consenting party. As a result, intimate partner violence persists unchecked. Marginalised communities face systemic violations of bodily autonomy – their consent frequently dismissed in medical, legal, and social contexts. Justice remains elusive for countless survivors, as institutions designed to protect, often perpetuate harm.
Who, then, is granted the privilege to wield even this meagre vocabulary? How will we navigate deeper waters when verbal dissent remains unheeded?
Cover image by Kaboompics on Pexels
