Abstract
Examining how adolescents understand the concept of sexual consent, and expect to garner or confer consent in sexual encounters, can contribute to the design of age- and developmentally appropriate prevention programs that promote healthy adolescent dating and sexual relationships. The current qualitative study utilized semi-structured in-depth interviews (N = 33) to explore perceptions of sexual consent among high school students (ages 14-18). Thematic analysis identified three salient themes pertaining to (a) the definition of consent as indicating a verbal “yes” to engage in sexual activity, (b) beliefs that an array of verbal and nonverbal strategies would be utilized to garner or convey consent in actual sexual encounters, and (c) expectations that consent would be communicated differently following an initial sexual encounter. Specifically, whereas consent was defined as a verbal provision of affirmative consent, both male and female adolescents believed girls typically conveyed consent nonverbally in sexual encounters. Adolescent girls indicated that they would convey sexual refusal through nonverbal cues, whereas adolescent boys reported they would proceed with sexual activity until they heard the verbal expression of “no.” Regardless of gender, participants shared the perception that adolescents who previously engaged in sexual activity can expect that sexual activity will happen again without the need for verbal consent, particularly within established relationships. These findings highlight important discrepancies in adolescents’ definition of sexual consent—primarily through verbal consent—and how they behaviorally indicated sexual consent and sexual refusal—primarily through nonverbal actions.
Introduction
High school years (ages 14-18) represent a crucial period of development for adolescents, when many adolescents indicate increasing awareness and exploration of sexual identity, and commence romantic and sexual relationships (Miller, 2017). Over 30% of U.S. ninth-grade adolescents report sexual activity with at least one partner in the past 3 months (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2016). In fact, by the age of 17, nearly half of males and 40% of females engage in partnered sexual activity (vaginal, oral, or anal sexual acts; Fortenberry et al., 2010). Importantly, the onset of sexual activity during adolescence is often associated with increased risk of sexual violence (Eaton et al., 2010; Williams et al., 2014). According to the National Survey of Family Growth, 2006-2010, 11% of young adults (18-24 years of age) who experienced sexual debut before the age of 20 report not wanting the sexual activity to happen at the time of the first sexual encounter (Martinez, Copen, & Abma, 2011). Furthermore, a greater portion of female participants reported an unwanted first sexual encounter than males (10.8% compared with 5%) and nearly half of females reported having “mixed feelings” about engaging in the first sexual encounter, compared with one third of males (Martinez et al., 2011).
The CDC (2014) defines sexual violence as any “sexual act that is committed or attempted by another person without freely given consent of the victim or against someone who is unable to consent or refuse.” Adolescence is a period of particularly high risk of sexual violence (Planty, Langton, Krebs, Berzofsky, & Smiley-McDonald, 2013; Rennison, 2000), with research suggesting 40% of female victims of rape were under 18 years old at the time of the assault (Black et al., 2011). Furthermore, in the United States, an estimated 26% of 17 year-old-girls and 5% of 17-year-old boys report a history of sexual victimization (Finkelhor, Shattuck, Turner, & Hamby, 2014). Notably, it is common for victims of sexual violence to experience a “freeze” response to sexual victimization, as the nervous system attempts to dampen distress and reduce physical feelings of pain (Gray & McNaughton, 2000). The psychological and health consequences of sexual victimization are well documented and include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD; Hedtke et al., 2008; McLaughlin et al., 2013), risk of unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (Decker, Silverman, & Raj, 2005; McFarlane et al., 2005), substance abuse and self-blame (Peter-Hagene & Ullman, 2018), and increased risk of sexual revictimization (Dworkin, Menon, Bystrynski, & Allen, 2017; Gidycz, Coble, Latham, & Layman, 1993; J. A. Humphrey & White, 2000; Risser, Hetzel-Riggin, Thomsen, & McCanne, 2006; Young & Furman, 2008). The negative health outcomes associated with experiences of victimization underscore the importance of primary prevention of sexual violence among adolescents.
Fostering an awareness of what constitutes sexual consent is believed to be a critical component of sexual assault prevention (CDC, 2017). Sexual consent is often defined as “freely given verbal or non-verbal communication of a feeling of willingness to engage in sexual activity” (p. 259, Hickman & Muehlenhard, 1999). Other definitions of sexual consent suggest that consent can only be present through a verbal indication of willingness to engage in sexual activity. For example, Section 67386(a)(1) of California’s Education Code (Student Safety: Sexual Assault Act, 2014) recognizes affirmative, verbal consent as the only legal signal of consent in response to the high prevalence of rape on college campuses (Jozkowski, 2015). Muehlenhard, Humphreys, Jozkowski, and Peterson (2016) explain that part of the controversy surrounding what constitutes consent stems from the varying definitions of consent across legal, social, and research contexts. Three conceptualizations of consent emerge in the literature: consent as internal “willingness,” consent as explicit agreement, and consent as “inferred” willingness (Muehlenhard et al., 2016). In the absence of a universal definition of consent, researchers have explored the ways individuals understand, signal, and interpret consent in their own lived experiences, with the vast majority of the research conducted among heterosexual undergraduate students (e.g., Jozkowski, 2015; Lindgren, Schacht, Pantalone, Blayney, & George, 2009).
The theory of sexual scripts, first proposed by Gagnon and Simon (1973), offers a framework for understanding socialized gender roles in sexual consent. Early research on sexual scripts focused on sexual initiation and posited men act as “initiators” and pursue sexual activity while women control the extent of the sexual acts in their role as “gatekeepers” (Gagnon & Simon, 1973; Metts & Spitzberg, 1996). Guided by these sexual scripts, college-aged men may be more likely to interpret nonverbal cues as signals of consent than their female peers (Farris, Viken, Treat, & McFall, 2006; Jacques-Tiura, Abbey, Parkhill, & Zawacki, 2007; Lofgreen, Mattson, Wagner, Ortiz, & Johnson, 2021). Men are also more likely to rely on their partners’ nonverbal indicators to detect sexual refusal, whereas women report looking for their partners’ verbal and nonverbal indicators (Jozkowski, Peterson, Sanders, Dennis, & Reece, 2014). Indeed, women are more likely to utilize sexual refusal cues than men, a finding Marcantonio, Jozkowski, and Lo (2018) explain can be understood in the context of traditional sexual scripts in which women respond to men’s sexual initiation. Furthermore, the absence of sexual communication in traditional sexual scripts may make it difficult to communicate desire and pleasure during sexual activity (Wiederman, 2005). Thus, traditional sexual script may negatively affect women’s overall sexual satisfaction (Blunt-Vinti, Jozkowski, & Hunt, 2019) and pose challenges for continuous consent throughout the course of a sexual encounter.
Relationship factors also play a role in sexual consent. Specifically, longer relationship history may be negatively associated with undergraduates’ perceived need of verbal consent, such that students describe explicit consent as being less frequent before sexual activity within long-term or serious relationships (T. Humphreys, 2007; Marcantonio, Jozkowski, & Wiersma-Mosley, 2018). Furthermore, women may also acquiesce to sexual activity with their partners in established relationships to avoid conflict (Conroy, Krishnakumar, & Leone, 2015). Internalized stereotypes normalizing female subservience and passivity in sexual activity may be associated with decreased refusal of unwanted sexual activity among female college students (Hust, Rodgers, & Bayly, 2017).
There is a paucity of research on sexual consent among high school–age adolescents compared with the research on college-age populations. However, fostering an understanding of sexual consent among high school students may be especially important in light of findings that sexual assertiveness (Rickert, Sanghvi, & Wiemann, 2002), self-efficacy for condom use (Teitelman, Ratcliffe, Morales-Aleman, & Sullivan, 2008), and sexual agency (Mann, 2016) are often absent from the sexual experiences of adolescent girls. Furthermore, as adolescents often lack the skills to refuse peer pressure to engage in health risk behavior, such as alcohol use (Salvy, Pedersen, Miles, Tucker, & D’Amico, 2014; Scheier, Botvin, Diaz, & Griffin, 1999), many school-based substance use prevention programs explicitly teach verbal and nonverbal skills that adolescents can use to communicate their desires (Botvin & Griffin, 2007).
There is also reason to expect that norms regarding sexual consent among high school–age adolescents may vary from norms regarding sexual consent among college students. Specifically, adolescent sexual activity is often associated with risk-taking (Kotchick, Shaffer, Miller, & Forehand, 2001; Weinstock, Berman, & Cates, 2004). Adolescence is also often a period of experimentation and formation of sexual identity (Horne & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2005; Miller, 2017), wherein adolescents will use coital and noncoital sexual activities to discover hitherto unknown sexual preferences. Increased sexual experience among adolescents is associated with higher sexual subjectivity and sexual agency, illustrating positive impacts of initial sexual exploration (Horne & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2005). Whether adolescents are discussing exploration of new sexual activities or continuation of a sexual relationship, sexual communication and establishment of noncoercive consent are tantamount to ensuring comfortable, desired sexual encounters during which consent remains an ongoing process. Behaviors developed and habituated around consent during adolescence may have a long-term impact on sexual safety over the lifetime. High school adolescents may also not be provided with education on consent, which is now—following Title IX guidance—a recommended component of sexual assault prevention on college campuses (U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, 2014). For these reasons, a better understanding of beliefs regarding sexual consent among adolescents would benefit the design of sexual violence prevention interventions for adolescents by providing a clearer understanding of how sexual consent behaviors emerge during the adolescent years.
This study extends previous research aimed at understanding beliefs regarding sexual consent by examining perceptions of consent among adolescents between the ages of 14 and 18. Given the paucity of previous research on sexual consent among high school–age adolescents, exploratory research using qualitative methods offered an ideal approach to understand perceptions of sexual consent among adolescents. Whereas survey data are largely retrospective and may result in recall bias, the process of qualitative interviewing can guide sampling, establish preliminary results, provide interpretation for surprising results, explain outliers, and allow for in-depth exploration of individual participant experiences (Morgan, 1998). To our knowledge, the current study is the first qualitative exploration of adolescents’ understanding of consent. Toward the goal of understanding consent, the interview guide centered around the following research questions:
Method
Participants
Thirty-three adolescents provided parental consent and adolescent assent to participate in the study. Two audio files were of poor quality, precluding transcription. Two additional interviews were deemed to stray from the interview protocol despite attempts by the interviewer to keep participants within the scope/theme of interview questions and were excluded from the study. The final data set consisted of 29 interview transcripts. Because these data were anonymous, it was not possible to identify and remove the demographic information from the four adolescents who were excluded from the analyses when describing the demographic characteristics of the study sample. Thus, the demographic characteristics reported in Table 1 are reflective of the 33 participants enrolled in the study. On average, participants were 17 years of age (range = 14-19 years). Youth self-identified as female (n = 20), male (n = 11), and transgender (n = 2). Sixty percent (n = 20) identified as Hispanic.
Demographic Characteristics of Enrolled Participants (N = 33).
Procedure
Data were collected in the context of study aiming to refine a sexual assault prevention program for high school adolescents (Orchowski et al., 2016). A convenience sampling technique was utilized to recruit 33 high school students from two high schools (one public charter school and one private high school) to participate in an individual interview. Recruitment occurred over a 2-year period, until the research team deemed that the qualitative analysis had reached theoretical saturation. The interviews were advertised as an opportunity for students to provide input on factors associated with healthy relationships among youth. A flier was distributed to all students within the school with information about the research study. Based on total enrollment in the schools, it is estimated that approximately 450 parents received information on the study. The flier included a parental consent-to-contact form. Students who returned a signed parental consent form received US$5 gift card to a local merchant, regardless of the parent’s decision to allow the student to participate.
Students with parental approval were contacted and provided with further details on the study and interview process. Two members of the research staff met with parents at a public location, such as the school office, a local coffee shop, a library, or a community center, to explain the study and review the consent information. Meeting locations were arranged via email or over the telephone. During the parent meetings, research staff reviewed the consent form with parents and answered any parental questions regarding interview protocol before obtaining consent. Students were eligible for participation if they provided written parental and adolescent assent. We were aware that students in some grades at both study sites had been offered a three-session sexual assault prevention program that included education on sexual consent by the local rape crisis center. To ensure that student’s conceptualizations of consent were not influenced by recent participation in this sexual assault prevention program, students were excluded from the study if they reported attending the program.
The study was approved by the hospital institutional review board. All interviews were conducted by a trained research assistant or study staff member of the same gender as the participant. All interviewers received training on semi-structured interview methods. Participants engaged in a one-on-one semi-structured interview that explored teenagers’ perceptions of dating and sexual behavior in their high school. The interviews were conducted after school on the school premise in a private room. Before commencing the interview, the researcher reminded the participant to (a) speak about general experiences as opposed to personal experience, and (b) never to use any names or details that could identify another school community member. Interviewers asked participants to elaborate on or clarify their responses as needed. Participants could pass on any topic they did not feel comfortable discussing and were invited to ask the interviewer to clarify the intent of their question. Openness varied across participants—whereas some students felt comfortable enough with staff to use colloquialisms, others maintained a more formal dynamic. The interviews lasted approximately 90 min, and students who participated in the interview received US$30 upon completion. The interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. All identifying information was removed from the transcript. A copy of the interview script can be obtained upon request from the authors.
Qualitative Coding Procedures
Iterative qualitative coding of the interviews using NVivo 11 software (QSR International Pty Ltd, 2017) was used to create a preliminary codebook for organizing the data. The resulting codebook was reviewed by three members of the research team and finalized to include three main codes pertaining to consent: “definition of consent,” “conveyance of consent,” and “continuous consent.” The coding team, consisting of two coders, met regularly to discuss coding findings and address discrepancies. The percentage agreement and Cohen’s (1960) kappa coefficient were calculated to assess interrater reliability across all 29 included participant interviews. For consent codes related to definition of consent, conveyance of consent, and continuous consent, interrater reliability was very good (Cohen’s κ = .89-.94) with observed percentage agreement of 99%. The three codes were reviewed and summarized with respect to commonly described attitudes and shared experiences among the participants. Thematic analysis methods (Braun & Clarke, 2006) were applied to the coded data and resulted in the reported main themes and subthemes. Thematic analysis is an adaptable method of qualitative data analysis used to identify, organize, describe, and report themes based on summarized findings (Braun & Clarke, 2006). As opposed to ascribing to theoretical frameworks, thematic analysis allows main findings, or themes, to emerge directly from trends in the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
Following Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) definition of saturation in qualitative analyses, recruitment for the study continued until the research team determined that the study data reached theoretical saturation. Following this definition, saturation was reached when the research team deemed that similar instances of a theme were recorded on multiple occasions and were empirically confident that the category was saturated. The interview was developed with a priori thematic research questions in mind, and study sampling, data collection, and analysis procedures occurred concurrently over a 2-year period until saturation of data pertaining to these research questions were achieved (see Bryman, 2012).
Results
Most participants shared perspectives which they believed reflected norms regarding sexual consent in their school community, as indicated by responding to interview questions with phrases such as “students in this school,” “most of the kids at my school,” and “most of the time.” The analysis revealed three primary themes related to perceptions of sexual consent: (1) “Saying Yes”: adolescents define sexual consent as saying “yes” to sexual activity; (2) “If She Doesn’t Say No”: discrepancies in the conveyance of consent and sexual refusal among boys and girls; and (3) “Once Yes, Always Yes”: if adolescents have previously engaged in sexual activity, it can be expected that sexual activity will happen again without the need for verbal consent (see Table 2 for a summary of themes).
Summary of Themes.
Out of 20 participants asked the research question.
Out of 25 participants asked the research question.
Theme 1—Defining Sexual Consent as Saying “Yes” to Sexual Activity
When participants were asked to provide a definition of “consent,” the majority of responses described consent as a verbal agreement, or permission, to engage in sexual activity. Two participants were not familiar with “consent” and asked for clarification. The majority of male and female participants defined consent as the result of a spoken conversation, with most responses including “yes,” “no,” “okay,” or “permission” in the definition. For example, when asked to define consent for sexual activity, one female participant indicated, Both of the partners are like, “Yes I want to have sex.” And they’re like confident about it.
As seen in the example above, some participants defined consent as both partners talking about sex and agreeing to sexual activity. Participants shared the perspective that consent was defined as given freely and with confidence. Among three of the study participants, the view was also shared that consent was defined as agreeing to sexual activity knowing there was also the opportunity to sexually refuse, as one female participant shared: No one’s using force in any way, they both are kinda agreeing and they have the opportunity to say no but they both say yes.
The participant’s response above illustrates the view that adolescents view consent in terms of agreeing to or declining sexual activity. The example above suggests for some adolescents, a sexual encounter without the possibility of sexual refusal is not viewed as consensual.
Consistent with an affirmative consent standard, participants also defined consent as a verbal affirmation of agreement for sexual activity. For example, when asked to define consent, one male participant indicated,
How do you think most teens define consent?
They’ll say “yes.”
So someone saying “yes”
Exactly.
That seems pretty simple
I think that’s the only way . . . The only way I think that’s legit is for verbal agreement, that’s it, cause how hard is it to say “yes” or “no.”
As highlighted here, most participants define consent as a straightforward discussion between two adolescents in which verbal agreement or disagreement clearly delineated whether sexual activity would occur. Verbal affirmation of consent was perceived to reduce any confusion surrounding either partner’s preferences for engaging in sexual activity. In the participants’ definition of consent, responsibility is placed on both partners to verbally express consent and respect the partner’s explicit decisions regarding consent in return. It is important to note that although participants’ definition of consent clearly followed a verbal standard of affirmative consent, participants did not describe what types of activities partners in a sexual encounter were consenting to, or whether the partners needed to consent to the same activities. Participants also did not define consent as an ongoing process during a sexual encounter.
Theme 2—“If She Doesn’t Say No”: Discrepancies in the Conveyance of Consent and Sexual Refusal Among Boys and Girls
Whereas participants’ definition of sexual consent suggested that consent required a clear verbal communication of “yes,” adolescents’ descriptions of how consent was actually conveyed among teens reflected a reliance on nonverbal indications of sexual interest, as well as both nonverbal and verbal indications of sexual refusal. Specifically, the majority of male and female participants suggested that—in practice—adolescents used nonverbal gestures and behavioral actions to communicate sexual consent and negotiate through a sexual encounter. Boys in the sample described several nonverbal indicators that they believed girls would use to indicate their agreement to sexual activity. These nonverbal indicators of consent included subtle cues of sexual interest, such as light touching or a look, to more overt indicators of sexual interest, such as heavy touching, kissing, moving the partner’s head or hands down toward sexual body parts, or removing clothing. For example, when asked how female partners communicate sexual interest, one male participant shared,
They might do something like pull you on top of them, they could take off your shirt or their shirt or whatever.
To kind of initiate it?
Yeah, or you could just feel their vibe, like the intimacy, like when you’re actually doing something and they let you I guess, like they grab you and stuff like that, simple movements that they do I guess.
As seen above, boys interpreted a mix of physical nonverbal cues, such as removal of clothing, as signals contributing to their partner’s overall “vibe” or display of “intimacy.” Similarly, a male participant described the initiation of sexual activity as nonverbal, as seen in the example below: They don’t really talk. They kinda just go for it I assume. People don’t really talk anymore. It’s more of a hands-on thing like if you move a certain direction like if you’re showing attention to the matter then that’s just enough.
Participants did not indicate whether specific physical nonverbal cues signaled different levels of sexual interest or consent to more intimate sexual acts. As the quote above indicates, adolescents may interpret any nonverbal cue of sexual interest as sufficient evidence of consent to sexual activity.
Furthermore, both male and female adolescents described girls as being primarily responsible for communicating consent to sexual activity, such that the absence of sexual refusal by a girl was considered a sign of sexual consent. Consistent with traditional heterosexual sexual scripts, it was assumed that boys would initiate a sexual encounter that they were consenting to and that girls would either respond to the encounter by nonverbally allowing it to proceed or by issuing a verbal “no” to stop the encounter. For example, when asked how one would know that someone was comfortable with sexual activity, one male participant noted,
How do you know that other person is comfortable if you haven’t even had that conversation with them yet?
It’s just a hunch, you should already know. You obviously know if you’re ready, the other person may or may not be ready, it’s a 50/50 chance that they’re going to be ready. And if you sit down and they sit next to you and you start making out well there you go now you know that you both are ready. But that’s just the way it is.
The above example illustrates the willingness among adolescent boys to “make the first move” in a sexual encounter, with the “chance” that the participant will object, illustrating that boundary testing is utilized to infer sexual consent. As highlighted in this example, adolescent boys in the sample described that sexual activity often occurred in practice without a verbal agreement prior to initiating the sexual encounter. Instead, it was assumed that if a female partner allowed sexual activity to occur, then sexual consent was present.
In fact, the most prominent example of nonverbal indicators of sexual consent was silence. Male and female participants shared the perspective that the female partner’s silence can be interpreted as an indication of both consent and enjoyment of the current sexual activities. For example, when asked to describe how consent is communicated, one female adolescent noted, So consent in this school is definitely the whole “if she doesn’t say no then she says yes” thing, I wanna say. So like I said previously, you know how sex would go so you and someone are kissing, maybe on somebody’s bed and then they’ll probably put their hand in your pants and you’re not saying anything, also that probably means you like it. So if you’re not saying anything and you keep going then they’re going to keep going then they’re gonna take your pants off, and then they’re gonna take their pants off and then that’s as far as consent goes.
As highlighted in the quote above, participants indicated that silence held the same legitimacy among male and female adolescents as explicit verbal confirmation of consent. The scenario describes sexual activity building to more intimate levels; the female partner’s silence signals her permission, and presumably enjoyment, because silence “probably means you like it.” Male participants shared similar perspectives about the interpretation of silence as consent to sexual activity. As one male participant notes when queried as to how adolescents convey consent, If you guys are kissing and stuff and you start touching and what not, and if she’s comfortable with it, she’ll let you do it or if she says no then clearly no, you gotta retract from doing whatever you was doing and do whatever you was doing before, so kissing or touching or whatever, if you’re not having sex.
As described earlier, the quote above highlights how, when asked to describe the conveyance of consent, adolescent boys defaulted to describing how adolescent girls reacted to the initiation of sexual activity. The phase “she’ll let you do it” highlights how the absence of sexual refusal—as indicated by the word “no”—was perceived as agreement to sexual activity. In sum, rather than garnering a verbal affirmation of consent prior to sexual activity, boys tended to initiate sexual activity and wait until they heard the word “no” to stop the sexual encounter. One male participant described sexual initiation as interpreting the partner’s reaction to sexual acts as they occur: They test it out to see like “what’ll this person do if I do this?” If they get a negative or positive reaction they will take it a step further or a step back and address it from there.
In these moments, sexual refusal with the word “no” was often communicated in response to the escalation of sexual activity, at which point boys described going back to the sexual activity that they had previously been engaging in with a partner.
There was some variability, however, in how boys and girls described signals of sexual refusal. Participants were asked to describe how adolescents respond if they do not want to engage in sexual activity, or proceed beyond previously consented sexual acts. Male participants predominantly described hearing the word “no” as a sign to stop sexual activity. For example, one male participant noted, If you want to do more, just make sure you’re in the right position. If she says no you gotta respect it, that’s when rape comes up.
Overall, male participants generally described the seriousness of verbal sexual refusal. The inclusion of rape in the description of sexual refusal was found in one other response. Male participants generally believed it was easy for female adolescents to say “no.” Female participants, however, were more likely to describe nonverbal indications of sexual refusal behaviors among their peers. For example, when asked how girls convey they did not want to engage in sexual contact, one female participants provided the following response: Um, I’m guessing that they would like, if they didn’t want something they would like try to move like they would move away from that person or they would like, if they were being touched or something they would like, again take away, remove the hands where they are. Or like push the person away a little.
The example above illustrates the physical cues female adolescents may use to refuse sexual activity. Other participants shared the perspective that in addition to physically pushing a partner away, some female adolescents will make a face of discomfort. Female participants generally believed that male sexual partners would recognize physical signs of sexual refusal and cease sexual activity, similar to hearing “no.”
Theme 3—“Once Yes, Always Yes”: Reestablishing Consent After a First Sexual Encounter Is Unnecessary
The majority of participants shared the view that establishing consent was unnecessary if two adolescents had already engaged in sexual activity. First, both male and female participants indicated that an adolescent can expect to have a second sexual encounter with the same partner because they assumed consent was carried over to future sexual activity. In other words, unless either partner objected to a second sexual encounter, it was a possibility. This perspective applied to both long-term relationships and casual-sex or “hook-up” relationships. For example, when queried about how sexual consent was established among partners who had shared in sexual activity before, one adolescent male suggested, Like they’ll expect it and they’ll think that it’s okay to do it the next time because you already gave them your consent the first time . . . they think it’s okay because it happened the first time. So they’ll be like “What’s the problem? Why can’t it happen a second time?”
Other participants shared that reestablishing consent was not necessary in long-term relationships. When describing how sexual consent might be established in long-term relationships, many participants discussed long-term partners “knowing” each other well enough that body language and nonverbal signals indicated sexual interest without the need for verbal confirmation of consent. Furthermore, many female participants shared that once sexual activity was initiated within established couples, it becomes an expected component of the relationship. For example, one adolescent girl commented, Some of them they feel like if their partner really enjoys it and they don’t want to sadden them or anger them then they might stay quiet. So it’s like “okay I like this but I don’t like this, but I don’t wanna make you mad.”
This example illustrates that in addition to expecting sexual activity within established relationships, adolescents might not verbally refuse sexual activity out of fear they will upset their partner. Foregoing discussion of consent to avoid conflict was more commonly mentioned among female participants than male participants.
Discussion
The present study explored perceptions of consent among high school students. Adolescence is a time of development when many youths are exploring their sexual identity and initiating romantic and sexual relationships. For these reasons, it is important to understand how adolescents understand sexual consent so that this information can be taken into account when constructing educational curricula and sexual assault prevention programs. The present study, to our knowledge, represents the first qualitative analysis of how adolescent high school students conceptualize consent for sexual activity. Three themes were revealed.
First, adolescents predominantly defined consent using a verbal standard of affirmative consent. Specifically, participants in the current study demonstrated a confident grasp on the definition of consent as verbalized permission to proceed with sexual activity, with the vast majority of responses in agreement that consent involves unambiguous, noncoercive, and nonforced agreement to sexual activity by both partners. Second, whereas adolescents defined sexual consent through a verbal standard of affirmative consent, they suggested that—in practice—sexual consent was more likely to be conveyed through nonverbal cues, especially through silence or the absence of a verbal refusal of sexual activity (i.e., saying “no”). These findings are notable, suggesting that although adolescents can provide a standard definition of consent, their understanding of how consent translated into real life experiences varied—and rarely included experiences that could be defined as affirmative verbal consent.
Instead, adolescents described that consent was predominantly communicated by adolescent females’ silence in response to the initiation of sexual activity (i.e., the absence of sexual refusal) or via subtle (i.e., a look) or overt (i.e., removing clothing) physical behaviors. The common experience of nonverbal signals among the high school participants are consistent with previous literature reporting high frequency of nonverbal sexual consent behaviors among college students (Beres, 2010; Hickman & Muehlenhard, 1999; T. Humphreys, 2007), suggesting that perceptions of what constitutes sexual consent may be established long before students arrive at college. In this study, both boys and girls reported using nonverbal cues to convey consent. Given that research among college students suggests that college men are more likely to use nonverbal cues than their female peers (Beres, 2010; Hickman & Muehlenhard, 1999; Jozkowski et al., 2014), future research is needed to examine whether this trend holds true for younger adolescents. Although speculative, there may be changes in how youth communicate sexual consent in high school, compared with college.
Adolescents in the present sample did not describe using direct verbal communication as a method of conveying consent. Results of a previous qualitative study of adolescent sexual initiation experiences describe adolescent sexual decision making as a multistep dynamic process, in which adolescents (average age = 14.1 years) determine personal sexual boundaries, verbally communicate boundaries to their partner, and verbally negotiate boundaries in the moment (Michels, Kropp, Eyre, & Halpern-Felsher, 2005). In contrast to Michels et al.’s (2005) findings, verbal communication of boundaries was accomplished primarily when refusing sexual activity, rather than when agreeing to sexual activity. The average participant age in the current study was 3 years older than the average participant in Michels et al. (2005), and it may be that nonverbal conveyance of consent is more common among older adolescents. It is reasonable to hypothesize that youth commonly try out different communication patterns as they seek to negotiate sexual experiences and learn what they like and do not like in the context of a sexual partnership.
Notably, without prompting, both male and female adolescents positioned the female in a sexual interaction as being responsible for conveying agreement to sexual activity.
The reliance on female adolescents to determine the course of sexual activity through their consent or refusal is consistent with previous literature on traditional heterosexual scripts, which suggests that the gendered roles of consent may be driven by internalized expectations of sexual behavior, particularly among women (Bay-Cheng & Eliseo-Arras, 2008; Conroy et al., 2015; Ryan, 2011). Gagnon and Simon (1973) first proposed that sexual behavior is influenced by individuals’ understanding of their role in sexual encounters, interpersonal sexual negotiation between partners, and broader cultural frameworks that promote gendered sexual roles. Jozkowski et al. (2014) explain that adolescent females experience sexual development within the prescribed script of sexual coyness and gradual acquiescence to persistent, and often aggressive, male sexual advances. The findings of the current study provide further evidence of varied understandings of consent by gender, which may reflect the power dynamics within sexual negotiation of consent (Hust et al., 2017).
Specifically, whereas the participants’ descriptions aligned with previous studies’ depictions of sexually assertive young males who test boundaries (Jozkowski et al., 2014), the male participants’ staunch recognition of verbal refusal suggests keen awareness of sexual violence perpetration. Adolescent males’ reliance of their female partners to verbally signal nonconsent suggests that the version of “gatekeeping” described in the current study has less to do with relationship maintenance (Jozkowski, Marcantonio, & Hunt, 2017) and more to do with placing the responsibility of sexual violence prevention onto female partners (Burkett & Hamilton, 2012). These results draw into question the potential harm posed by teaching adolescents that legitimate consent behaviors are limited to verbal affirmation or refusal (Jozkowski, 2015). Specifically, if boys and men learn that sexual refusal is only communicated via the word “no,” they may overlook many of the nonverbal indicators that girls and women report using to convey sexual refusal. Indeed, in the present sample, girls most often described using an array of nonverbal or physical indicators of sexual refusal. Of note, contrary to existing research highlighting the typicality of victims experiencing a “freeze” response to sexual discomfort, findings from this sample did not suggest that girls and women would communicate sexual refusal through freezing up or keeping still.
Third, adolescents also perceived that once sexual activity had occurred between partners, consent for subsequent sexual activity was to be assumed. The majority of participants shared the perspective that if two people have already had a sexual encounter, sexual consent would not be required for future sexual activity. The discussion of long-term partners recognizing sexual interest without consent or discussion echoes previous findings of “tacit knowing” described by Beres (2010). These findings suggest that adolescents may not perceive continuous consent as a typical feature of their peers’ long-term relationships. These results are consistent with previous research of negotiation of consent within college relationships (Burkett & Hamilton, 2012; Conroy et al., 2015; T. Humphreys, 2007). For example, Conroy et al. (2015) report that young undergraduate women may acquiesce to sexual activity within relationships to satisfy their partners, maintain sexual scripts, and avoid negative consequences in their relationships. Jozkowski et al. (2017) describe similar complex understandings of consent among female undergraduate students who act as “sexual gatekeepers” in the face of their partners’ sexual activity initiation, with careful consideration of how consent or refusal will affect the partner’s ego or the young women’s own reputation (p. 243).
Mixed perceptions of what constitutes sexual consent among high school students highlight a critical area for attention in sexual violence prevention, as the results indicate that both primary and secondary sexual violence prevention strategies are needed to address unsafe consent norms among high school students. With regard to primary sexual violence prevention among high school students, the current findings support previous research highlighting the importance of establishing healthy and gender-equitable behaviors in early adolescent relationships, as ninth-grade participants in the study perceived risky sexual activity as the norm (Lundgren & Amin, 2015). The results of the current study also suggest that sexual violence prevention in high schools must include secondary prevention for adolescents who already engage in risky sexual behaviors. From the findings emerge two key recommendations for sexual violence prevention among high school students.
Although the participants of the present study did not explicitly name gender norms in their description of sexual consent behavior, important gender differences emerged in the data related to the perceived norms of sexual consent within heterosexual couples. The consent norms described by participants place a significant amount of responsibility on young women to make sexual decisions for the couple. Understanding consent strictly as “yes means yes” or the absence of a verbal no burdens young women with the task of “sexual gatekeeping” as a means of preventing assault (Burkett & Hamilton, 2012; Jozkowski, 2015). Furthermore, defining consent as females’ verbal “yes” or “no” leaves little room for nonverbal cues, including silence or signs of discomfort, to convey refusal. We interpret the current study’s findings as a challenge to the Miscommunication Hypothesis, which assumes acquaintance rape and sexual coercion are the result of miscommunication (McCaw & Senn, 1998). If male and female adolescents have the ability interpret subtle nonverbal cues as sexual consent, they can also recognize nonverbal cues of refusal (Beres, 2010; O’Byrne, Rapley, & Hansen, 2006). The present findings suggest that adolescents may be at high risk of sexual violence because their nonverbal signs of refusal are ignored or not labeled as signs of sexual refusal. Prevention programs must therefore address the fundamental role that gender inequity plays in sexual violence, with the goal of shifting social norms surrounding noticing and respecting signs of sexual refusal (Jozkowski, 2015).
Activities that highlight sexual communication skill building may be particularly useful in sexual violence prevention programs for high school students. The aims of these activities are twofold: (a) normalize discussion of sexual consent, and (b) provide students the opportunity to practice verbal and nonverbal sexual consent communication and recognition skills with the knowledge that their partners are literate in sexual communication (Beres, 2010). Sexual violence prevention should promote discussion of sexual consent in any type of sexual relationship, at all grade levels, as a normal and comfortable component of relationships. Interventions should address the misperception that a verbal “no” is the only indication of refusal, or that female partners are responsible for deciding how far the sexual activity goes. Structured role-play activities can provide adolescents with the opportunity to practice discussing sexual consent to reduce the perceived awkwardness of the conversation; all activities should normalize adolescents’ expectation that sexual partners will respond to their sexual decision making with respect (Beres, 2010).
Limitations, Future Directions, and Diversity Implications
The findings of this study should be considered in light of several limitations. It is important to note that participants were not queried as to whether they had engaged in any form of sexual activity. Thus, it is possible that the study sample included adolescents with a range of sexual experiences, as well as adolescents who had yet to engage in sexual activity. Varying degrees of sexual experience among the interview participants may affect their perspectives on typical sexual consent behaviors. Future research would benefit from comparing the perspectives of sexually active adolescents with the experiences of youth who are not sexually active. At the outset of participant interviews, the sample trended toward a greater level of female participation. Researchers, therefore, sought assistance from school staff in identifying young men who would be willing to participate in an interview. Although researchers strove to achieve gender parity, it was not feasible to ensure fully representative demographics given the recruitment method of convenience sampling. In future iterations of similar work, it would be useful to ensure racial/ethnic, gender, and sexual orientation parity. Furthermore, as participant demographics were not linked to individual interview transcripts, but taken as a sample whole, it was not possible to include a discussion of how participants of different ethnicities conceptualized and communicated sexual consent. It would be useful in future research to link participant demographics to a transcript ID number, to differentiate between ethnic groups’ sexual consent behaviors. The study’s sample size was derived from a public charter and a private high school in New England; therefore, the present study’s findings cannot be generalized to other settings. Although the interview script did not limit the discussion to heteronormative consent behaviors, all participants discussed the role of consent in heterosexual couples. As such, the current study cannot be generalized to all adolescent relationships. Consent norms among different types of adolescent sexual relationships present an important direction for future study.
Conclusion
The current study is an important step toward understanding how adolescents define and perceive sexual consent. Whereas definitions of sexual consent may be clear to adolescents as including a clear affirmative verbal affirmation of sexual activity, it is evident that in practice, adolescents convey consent through a much greater array of nonverbal strategies. As violence prevention efforts are necessary early in the life course, it is essential that researchers and practitioners not only engage youth in discussions of the definition of consent but also ensure that conversations include discussion of how consent is actually conveyed in the context of a sexual partnership.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was supported by U01CE002531, awarded to Rhode Island Hospital (L. Orchowski: PI). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the U.S. Government.
