An Exploration Of Sexual Consent, Sexual Non-Consent, And Nonverbal Sexual Consent Communication Behaviors, Amongst Community Stakeholders.

University of North Dakota University of North Dakota

UND Scholarly Commons UND Scholarly Commons

Theses and Dissertations Theses, Dissertations, and Senior Projects

January 2021

An Exploration Of Sexual Consent, Sexual Non-Consent, And An Exploration Of Sexual Consent, Sexual Non-Consent, And

Nonverbal Sexual Consent Communication Behaviors, Amongst Nonverbal Sexual Consent Communication Behaviors, Amongst

Community Stakeholders. Community Stakeholders.

Brent Stewart

How does access to this work bene;t you? Let us know!

Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/theses

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Stewart, Brent, "An Exploration Of Sexual Consent, Sexual Non-Consent, And Nonverbal Sexual Consent

Communication Behaviors, Amongst Community Stakeholders." (2021).

Theses and Dissertations

. 4104.

https://commons.und.edu/theses/4104

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, and Senior Projects at

UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized

administrator of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact und.commons@library.und.edu.

An Exploration of Sexual Consent, Sexual Non-Consent, and Nonverbal Sexual Consent

Communication Behaviors, amongst Community Stakeholders.

Brent Stewart

Bachelor of Arts, University of Washington, 2011

Master of Arts, University of North Dakota, 2018

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

of the

University of North Dakota

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Grand Forks, North Dakota

August, 2021

Name: Brent A Stewart

This document, submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree from the University of North Dakota, has been read by the Faculty Advisory

Committee under whom the work has been done and is hereby approved.

__________________________

__________

Kara Wettersten Ph.D.

__________________________

__________

Tamba-Kuii Bailey Ph.D.

__________________________

__________

Rae Ann Anderson Ph.D.

__________________________

__________

Cheryl Hunter Ph.D.

This document is being submitted by the appointed advisory committee as

having met all the requirements of the School of Graduate Studies at the University of

North Dakota and is hereby approved.

____________________________________

Chris Nelson

Dean of the School of Graduate Studies

7/26/2021

iii

PERMISSION

Title An Exploration of Sexual Consent, Sexual Non-Consent, and Nonverbal Sexual

Consent Communication Behaviors, amongst Community Stakeholders.

Department Counseling Psychology and Community Services

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

In presenting this dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirement for a

graduate degree from the University of North Dakota, I agree the library of this University shall

make it freely available for inspection. I further agree that permission for extensive copying or

scholarly purposes may be granted by the professor who supervised my dissertation work or, in

her absence, by the Chairperson of the department or the Dean of the School of Graduate

Studies. It is understood that any copying or publication or other use of this dissertation or part

thereof for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. It is also

understood that due recognition shall be given to me and to the University of North Dakota in

any scholarly use which may be made of any material in my dissertation.

Brent Stewart

May 3

, 2021

 
iv 
Table of Contents 
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 9 
Script Theory and Sexual Consent ................................................................................ 12 
Sexual Consent.............................................................................................................. 14 
Sexual Non-Consent ..................................................................................................... 17 
Consent and Violence Prevention ................................................................................. 18 
Nonverbal Consent........................................................................................................ 20 
Consent Practices in Underrepresented Communities .................................................. 23 
Delphi ............................................................................................................................ 25 
Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................... 26 
METHODS ....................................................................................................................... 28 
Participants .................................................................................................................... 28 
Procedure ...................................................................................................................... 33 
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 36 
Data Analysis Round One ............................................................................................. 37 
Data Analysis Round Two ............................................................................................ 37 
Data Analysis Round Three .......................................................................................... 38 
RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 40 
Sexual Consent Results ................................................................................................. 40 
Sexual Non-Consent Results......................................................................................... 44 

 
v 
Nonverbal Sexual Consent Communication Behaviors Results ................................... 66 
DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................... 77 
Sexual Consent.............................................................................................................. 77 
Sexual Non-Consent ..................................................................................................... 82 
Nonverbal Sexual Consent Communication Behaviors ................................................ 85 
Strengths and Limitations ............................................................................................. 88 
Implications for Violence Prevention and Practice ...................................................... 89 
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 91 
References ......................................................................................................................... 93 
 
 

 
vi 
List of Tables  
Table 1 Delphi Rounds 1,2,3, Panelist Demographics 
........................................................................................................................................... 30 
Table 2 Round 2, Level of Agreement to Descriptions of Consent 1(This does not adequately 
describe consent) to 5 (This very much describes consent) with Mean, Standard Deviation, and 
Variance 
 .......................................................................................................................................... 43 
Table 3 Round 2, Task 1, Qualitative Feedback to participants descriptions of Sexual Consent   
........................................................................................................................................... 17 
Table 4 Round 2, Sexual Consent Qualities Rank Order Position  
........................................................................................................................................... 33 
Table 5 Round 3, Sexual Consent Qualities Rank Order Position  
........................................................................................................................................... 36 
Table 6 Sexual Consent Qualities First Rank Order Position Comparison between Round Two 
Ranking and Round Three Ranking,  
........................................................................................................................................... 39 
Table 7 Sexual Consent Qualities Sixth Rank Order Position Comparison between Round Two 
Ranking and Round Three Ranking,  

 
vii 
........................................................................................................................................... 42 
Table 8 Round 3, Task 1, Level of Agreement to Descriptions of Sexual non -consent 1(Strongly 
Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree) with Mean, Standard Deviation, and Variance ............ 48 
Table 9 Round 3, Task 1 Qualitative Feedback to participants descriptions  
 .......................................................................................................................................... 56 
Table 10 Elements of Sexual Non-Consent Rank Order Position Round 3  
........................................................................................................................................... 64 
Table 11 Round One, Qualitative descriptions of missing nonverbal sexual consent 
communication behaviors.  
........................................................................................................................................... 67 
Table 12 Round Three, Nonverbal Sexual Consent Communication Behavior Usage 
........................................................................................................................................... 70 

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study is a result of a labor of love and is a testament to the support and unwavering faith of

the community which surrounded me as its’ author during the height of the dual pandemics of

COVID-19 and Racism. I would like to take a moment to acknowledge my parents (Brent and

Monica Stewart) for their faith, my grandmother (Margaret Hill) for her optimism, and my

siblings (Paula, Desmond, and Monique) for their cheers during this process. Additionally, I

would like to thank my midwestern family (Candice Farnham and the Motors) and my chosen

family in Seattle Washington (Peter Englund, Oliver Jones, Lauren Menor, Adam Panebianco,

Sam McQueen, Kate Gruver, Max Gray, Larissa Miller, Dr. Caroline Titan, Andrea Cerna, Jay

Miller). Next, I would like to acknowledge the deep support from my adviser (Dr. Kara

Wettersten), the UND faculty (including Drs. Tamba-Kuii Bailey; RaeAnn Anderson, Thomas

Motl, Ashley Hutchison and Cheryl Hunter) and the UND Housing Department (especially

Stuart Lickteig) all of whom helped make my dream of becoming a psychologist a reality.

Lastly, I would like to thank my colleagues Drs. Marisa Mango, Megan K. Smith, Natalie

Remanier, and Lauren Chapple-Love with whom I have the honor of sharing this journey with

and also share the privilege of calling UND their alma mater.

ABSTRACT

Sexual Consent is a central concept in the field sexual violence and sexual violence

prevention (Beres, 2007). However, despite disproportional rates of sexual violence amongst

LGBT+ community, currently our understanding sexual consent and its practice is primarily

focused on heterosexual encounters of traditional college aged students (CDC, 2017,

Muehlenhard, Humphreys, Jozkowski & Peterson, 2016). The current study utilized the Delphi

method to develop a better understanding of sexual consent, sexual non-consent, and nonverbal

sexual consent communication behaviors among two distinct groups: sexual researchers and men

who have sex with men (MSM). Thirty-five panelists (13 researchers 22 MSM) completed one-

three rounds of an interactive study in which they provided 31 initial descriptions of sexual

consent and 20 descriptions of sexual non-consent. Through grounded theory analysis, these

descriptions were collapsed into 6 qualities of sexual consent and 5 elements of sexual non-

consent and ranked for importance. Panelists reviewed, critiqued, and sorted Beres et al. (2007)’s

list of nonverbal sexual consent communication behaviors. Implications of the perception of

these behaviors and implications for future research and practice are discussed.

INTRODUCTION

In 2011, the nation focused its attention on sexual assault. Specifically, the Title IX Act

drew attention to sexual assault on college campuses through (Ali, 2011). The origins of title IX

stem from looking at equity amongst genders in terms of sports, but the Obama administration

was broadened to look at issues of identity-based harassment and sexual assault. This formal

adoption of sexual violence prevention as a governmental priority has provided a platform for

activists and advocates to bring sexual violence prevention to the forefront of the lives of many

Americans. This platform has included on campus trainings, documentary films regarding sexual

violence on college campuses, and most recently the #metoo movement (Airey, 2018;

Muehlenhard, Humphreys, Jozkowski, & Peterson, 2016).

Researchers of sexual violence have defined sexual violence broadly as “sexual contact

achieved without consent” (Beres, 2007; Halley, 2016, p. 262). Thus, the definition of sexual

violence depends heavily on the definition and conceptualization of sexual consent and how it is

communicated. Unfortunately, there is limited research on what constitutes sexual consent, and

an overall lack of consensus on what exactly sexual consent is or how it is communicated

between parties (Beres, 2007; Beres, 2014; Muehlenhard et al., 2016; Pugh & Becker, 2018).

Furthermore, when examining sexual consent, current research on consent and its

communications practices are centered around the experiences of white, heterosexual, cisgender,

individuals with varying levels of experience in sexual interactions (Beres et al., 2004;

Jozkowski, et al., 2014; Humphreys & Brousseau, 2010; Humphreys & Herold, 2007; Ward et

al., 2012). Thus, when considering sexual consent and its practice, and its relation to sexual

violence prevention it is paramount we broaden the scope of our understanding. This is

especially relevant given the documented disparities regarding the experience of sexual violence

within sexual minority and gender minority communities such as men who have sex with men

(MSM; Kosciw et al., 2016; Smith et al., 2018).

Further complicating this picture is the way we conceptualize the communication of

sexual consent between parties. Amongst sexual researchers, sexual consent communication has

been depicted with two clear sets of behaviors utilized by partners to convey and seek sexual

consent; verbal and nonverbal behaviors (Beres et al. 2004; Jozkowski et al., 2014). Verbal

behaviors largely fall within the realm of verbal communication and can include direct

communication, indirect communication, and “dirty talk” (Beres, et al. 2004; Hall, 1998;

Hickman & Muehlenhard, 1999; Jozkowski, et al. 2014). Broadly, nonverbal behaviors have

been labeled as “body language” and is considered to include behaviors such as hugging, kissing,

massaging, undressing, eyeing, self-stimulation of genitals, stimulation of partners’ genitals, and

non-resistance to sexual advances (Beres et al., 2004; Camilleri, et al., 2007). While both verbal

and nonverbal sexual consent communication behaviors are depicted across multiple studies,

current literature has depicted a clear preference amongst subjects for using nonverbal behaviors

rather than utilizing verbal communication behaviors (Beres et al., 2004; Hall, 1998; Humphreys,

2007; Jozkowski, et al., 2013 King, et al. 2020). Given this preference, it is important to consider

the impact these nonverbal communication behaviors have on the expression of sexual consent

especially within models of violence prevention such as affirmative consent.

Thus, it is scope of the current project to examine sexual consent communication

behaviors, specifically to examine the use of nonverbal sexual consent communication behaviors

amongst underrepresented populations in current literature. Utilizing the consensus-oriented

Delphi research methodology (Linstone & Turoff, 1975), the current study seeks to compare the

perceptions of sexual consent and sexual consent communication behaviors between sexual

researchers of any gender or sexual identity (SR) and men who have sex with men community

members (MSM). Specifically, the current study seeks to better understand how these two

groups conceptualize sexual consent, sexual non-consent, and nonverbal communication

behaviors of sexual consent.

Lastly, as part of this work, it is important to acknowledge the role that sexual consent,

most importantly the lack of sexual consent, plays in sexual violence. Within the scope of the

current study, it is the aim of the researcher to better understand nonverbal sexual consent

communication behaviors and their utilization within the process of sexual consent

communication. The current study is not designed to definitively define sexual consent, sexual

non-consent, or advocate for the replacement of verbal sexual consent communication behaviors

with nonverbal sexual consent communication behaviors. Rather, the current study seeks to build

a fuller picture of the sexual consent communication process specifically the use and

understanding of nonverbal sexual consent communication behaviors. Furthermore, because of

its intimate connections with sexual violence, it is also paramount to note the current study of

sexual consent communication behaviors is not designed to account for mal intent to cause harm.

Rather, this study seeks to create a fuller picture of sexual consent communication practices and

aide in the creation of even more effective sexual violence interventions and consent

communication practices that reflect the diversity of practices currently in use.

Script Theory and Sexual Consent

When discussing the concept of sexual consent and sexual consent communication

behaviors, it is important to acknowledge the role of cultural expectations and the perception of

“norms” in the communication process. Script Theory is an academic paradigm employed in the

fields of sociology and cognitive psychology as an explanation for human behavior (McCormick,

1987; Simon and Gagnon, 1986; Schank & Abelson 1977). Within the field of cognitive and

social psychology, script theory is considered analogous to computer programming and places an

emphasis on prior learning dictating future outcomes for an individual’s behavior (McCormick,

1987). In contrast, within sociology, scripts are a set of flexible guidelines, with larger cultural

messages (cultural beliefs) influencing an individuals’ actions (interpersonal scripts) and beliefs

about their actions (intrapsychic scripts; Simon & Gagnon, 2003; McCormick, 1987).

First appearing in the early 1970’s, Sexual Script Theory (SXST) was developed as

response to and rejection of the bio-medical and psychological explanations for sexual behavior

and sought to include contextual factors impact on sexual behavior (Gagnon & Simon, 2003).

Sexual script theory rests on the sociological notion of scripting, where sexually active

individuals have beliefs about the range of behaviors, they can engage in sexually based on

preceding behaviors of their partners (Fantasia, 2011; Rose & Frieze, 1989). Within the SXST

lens, widespread beliefs (i.e., cultural scenarios) around sexuality affect an individual’s actions

(i.e., interpersonal script) and more importantly their fantasies, beliefs, and internal experience

around their sexuality and sexual interactions (i.e., intrapsychic beliefs, Simon & Gagnon. 1986;

Widerman, 2015). Contextual factors such as race, age, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation,

have all been shown to affect sexual behavior, suggesting nuance and flexibility regarding sexual

scripts is important (Dworkin & O’Sullivan, 2005; Parsons et al., 2012; Simms & Byers, 2013).

In the context of sexual consent research, this framework is used often to explore and

explain behaviors of sexually active individuals. For instance, several studies have examined the

cultural belief of ‘men must initiate sexual activity’ and found that this belief impacts

individuals’ sexual initiation behaviors despite their personal preference or personal beliefs

(Dworkin & O’Sullivan 2005; Hirsch et al., 2019; Jozkowski & Peterson 2013; Jozkowski,

2015). Such findings are used to legitimize a key point of SXST: cultural beliefs affect one’s

sexual behavior (interpersonal scripts) and can override personal desires or beliefs when it comes

to sex practices (intrapsychic scripts). Additional research has gone on to explore and validate

the notion of a gendered (male and female) experience of intrapsychic scripts and subsequent

sexual practices and beliefs (Rosenthal et al., 1998; Ortiz Torres et al. 2003; Peplau 2003).

When considering sexual consent miscommunication violence prevention, SXST and the

notion of gendered intrapsychic scripts have large implications for best practice. For instance,

research into sexual violence prevention, sexual consent communication, and sexual consent

often cite the cultural belief women are expected to act as “gatekeepers” and men as “pleasure

seekers” framing their interactions in relatively set roles (Hirsch et al., 2019; Jozkowski, 2013;

2015; Peplau 2003). However, rather than viewing these as rigid internalized roles, much

research into sexual consent and sexual consent communication notes variation in intrapsychic

scripts of individuals based on gender identity, age, relationship status, race, and sexual interest

[e.g., kink] community membership (Beres & McDonald, 2016; Simms & Byers, 2013).

Furthermore, even within the narrow scope of heterosexual interactions, several studies provide

evidence to suggest limitations of generalizability SXST when considering the lived experience

of sexual behaviors and sexual consent communication behaviors of all sexually active people

(Beckmann, 2003; Dworkin & O’Sullivan, 2005; Beres & McDonald, 2016; Simms & Byers,

2013)

Within MSM population, variations in sexual script are apparent and may include the

behaviors of consensual non-monogamy, substance use in during sexual initiation, and sexual

involvement on the first date (Candelas de la Ossa, 2016; Edgar & Fitzpatrick, 1993; Javaid,

2018; Klinkenberg & Rose 1994; Parsons, Starks, Gamarel, & Grov, 2012). Furthermore, when

considering how these script differences may play out in the role of sexual consent

communication, researchers specifically looking into same sex partners note when responding

sexual initiation behaviors MSM report a higher use of nonverbal sexual consent communication

behaviors to indicate their consent when compared to women who have sex with women (WSW;

Beres et al., 2004, Peplau 2003). Additionally, amongst MSM couples, male intrapsychic scripts

(e.g., pleasure-driven scripts) appear to affect the interpersonal scripts and scenarios of MSM

community members regarding sexual and romantic behavior (Parsons, Starks, Gamarel, Grov,

2012). Thus, when thinking about sexual consent and sexual consent communication behaviors

in the MSM community, it is important to understand how cultural scenarios, interpersonal

scripts, and intrapsychic scripts interact in a dynamic fashion to affect consent behavior

communication practices amongst members of this group.

Sexual Consent

Further complicating our understanding of sexual consent communication behaviors and

their practice is that there is no clear agreed upon definition of sexual consent (Beres, 2014;

Muehlenhard et al., 2016; Pugh & Becker, 2018). Beres (2007) has put forth that current

literature often engages in “spontaneous consent” a process where definitions of sexual consent

are not established by the author, but rather it is assumed the reader shares a common

understanding of consent. Beres then goes on to make the case that, despite its’ central role in

our understanding of sexual violence, within the literature, sexual consent is not defined,

inadequately defined, or defined in ways contradictory to previous definitions (Beres, 2007).

Additionally, while a singular definition of sexual consent and its meaning remains opaque,

equally important is a lack of clarity around the concept of sexual non-consent. Within the scope

of literature some have defined sexual consent as merely the “absence of consent” (Halley,

2016). Within this context, defining sexual consent merely as the absence of consent, engenders

the question of what sexual non-consent and the role sexual non-consent and the communication

of non-consent is plays in our understanding of sexual violence prevention. Muehlenhard et al.’s

(2016) meta-analysis of empirical research on sexual consent notes three main

conceptualizations: sexual consent as an internal state of willingness, sexual consent as an act of

explicitly agreeing to something, and sexual consent as behavior that some else interprets as

willingness.

When considering sexual situations, each of the three conceptualizations put forth by

Muehlenhard et al. (2016) boast strengths and weaknesses as potential basis for the definition of

sexual consent, sexual consent communication behaviors, and the prevention of sexual

miscommunication. For instance, when considering sexual consent as an internal state

willingness, this definition notes that sexual consent cannot be objectively defined by solely one

member of the interaction. Therefore, under this premise, sexual consent must clearly involve

both the internal agreement and willingness of one member to do something and the enacting of

behaviors to express that willingness to others successfully (Hickman & Muehlenhard, 1999;

Muehlenhard et al., 2016). Sexual consent as an internal state of willingness places large

emphasis on individual party members demonstrating correct behaviors to communicate their

willingness to engage in sexual activity. This places emphasis on communication behaviors and

lends itself to popular theories of sexual violence and unwanted experiences (at least in some

cases) being due in part to miscommunication of sexual consent (Abbey, 1982, 1987; Fantasia,

2011).

The second broad understanding of sexual consent is an act of explicitly agreeing to

something (Muehlenhard et al. 2016). In sexual situations, this model of sexual consent involves

an explicit verbal agreement between an initiator and respondent to engage in sexual activity.

This perspective of sexual consent most closely aligns with aspirational notions of sexual

consent which seek to have sexual consent explicitly communicated such as affirmative consent

(de La Ossa, 2016; Soble, 2002). As a model of sexual consent, the explicit nature of agreement

employed by these conceptualizations are preferred as they speak to the notion that a lack of

sexual consent (i.e., sexual assault) occurs due to a lack of clear verbal communication between

parties resulting in a miscommunication (Abbey, 1982, 1987; de La Ossa, 2016; Fantasia, 2011).

However, several research findings suggest limitations of conceptualizing sexual consent in this

way, which include the well-documented fact that verbal sexual consent communication

behaviors during sexual consent negotiation is less common than nonverbal sexual consent

communication behaviors (Beres et al. 2004; Hall, 1998; Humphreys, 2007; Jozkowski et al.,

2013). Additionally, some have postulated due to the inherent nature of some sexual

relationships (especially heterosexual interactions) that women especially should be able to

convey non-consent with a multitude of means outside of simply saying “no” (Kitzinger & Frith,

1999).

The third and final grouping of sexual consent definitions reviewed by Muehlenhard et al.

(2016) is considering sexual consent as a behavior that someone else interprets as willingness.

When considering sexual consent in this way, the legal notion of “implied consent” is most

applicable to this group. Implied consent suggests that consent is given via a sign or action that

creates a reasonable presumption of acquiescence (Block, 2004). In the context of sexual consent

communication, implied consent relies heavily on the notion of a shared sexual script in which

both actors are familiar with and well-rehearsed in said script. There are several limitations

conceptualizing sexual consent in this way, including the fact subscription to cultural beliefs

(i.e., Cultural scenarios) regarding sexual initiation behaviors and actual sexual behavior (i.e.

interpersonal scripts) can differ among individuals (Beres & McDonald, 2016; Dworkin, &

O'Sullivan, 2005; Simms & Byers, 2013). In summary all three conceptualizations of sexual

consent as outlined by Muehlenhard et al. (2016) provide a unique framework for understanding

sexual consent and thus helping inform policies around effective sexual violence prevention

practices. All three models of sexual consent underscore the importance of effective

communication between parties as being integral to the process of establishing sexual consent.

Sexual Non-Consent

When considering the impact of sexual violence on communities, and the role sexual

consent plays in defining instances of sexual violence, it also becomes integral to consider the

role of and our understanding of sexual non-consent. Analysis of sexual consent definitions in

literature have noted that much of the current literature merely refers to sexual violence as

intercourse with a of consent present or “sexual contact achieved without consent” (Beres, 2007;

Halley, p. 262, 2016). Similarly, within the US legal system, there is a long history of examining

the role of force, sexual consent, and sexual non-consent when considering the definition of the

crime of rape (Decker and Boaroni, 2011). Historically many states have included an unfair

burden on those who have experienced an unwanted sexual experience to “prove” an incident

was indeed non-consensual especially in the absence of overt force or violence (Decker and

Baroni 2011). This standard has been used in other crimes within the legal system, with the

presence of “force” being used to delineate between crimes involving similar offenses (e.g.,

larceny vs. robbery, manslaughter vs. murder; Peeler, 2021). However, when considering cases

and instances of sexual violence, intent of the perpetrator is generally outweighed by the impact

of experiences on survivors. Furthermore, as noted by many scholars, the complex nature of

sexual interactions and the “use of force” is not the only indication of an unwanted sexual

experience (Kitzinger & Frith, 1999; Pugh & Becker, 2018). Therefore, when exploring sexual

violence and it’s prevention, its also important for researchers and the public to better understand

the concept of sexual non-consent and the ways in which sexual non-consent is communicated

between parties.

Consent and Violence Prevention

As noted above, sexual consent and the communication of sexual consent are important

components of sexual violence prevention. Thus, a large goal of violence prevention programing

is addressing the notion known as implied consent and miscommunications that may result of

that implication. To correct for the ambiguity and miscommunication associated with implied

consent, much attention has been focused on the adoption of laws and education programs that

focus on direct, clear, consistent, communication between parties as exemplified in the practice

of affirmative consent (Curtis & Burnett 2017; Jozkowski & Humphreys, 2014; De León, 2014).

The practice of affirmative consent, which focuses on training individuals to utilize direct,

consistent, and clear verbal communication during sexual activity in order to establish

enthusiastic participation by all parties, has become the primary means of teaching consent

practices--especially on college campuses (Antioch College, 2016; Ali, 2011; De León, 2014).

Affirmative consent is hallmarked by the seven key tenants in its practice which include:

1. Consent must be obtained verbally before there is any sexual contact or conduct.

2. Obtaining consent is an ongoing process in any sexual interaction.

3. If the level of sexual intimacy increases during an interaction… the people

involved need to express their clear verbal consent before moving to that new

level

4. The request for consent must be specific to each act.

5. If you had a particular level of sexual intimacy before with someone, you must

still ask each and every time.

6. If someone has initially consented but then stops consenting during a sexual

interaction, she/he should communicate withdrawal verbally and/or through

physical resistance. The other individual(s) must stop immediately.

7. Don’t ever make any assumptions about consent (p.327, Soble 2002).

However, several research findings suggest limitations of such an intervention. In

particular explicit verbal communication behaviors during sexual consent communication is less

common than nonverbal communication behaviors (Beres et al. 2004; Hall, 1998, Jozkowski et

al., 2013; King et al. 2020; Shumlich, & Fisher, 2018). Additionally, some factors such as the

length and duration of a relationship and gender identity of an individual, has been shown to

impact sexual consent communication practices, specifically use of and reliance on verbal

communication behaviors (Humphreys, 2007; Jozkowski & Peterson, 2013; King et. al, 2020;

Willis & Jozkowski, 2019). As outlined above in the seven key tenants, while affirmative

consent acknowledges the role of nonverbal sexual consent communication behaviors it is

decidedly vague on what constitutes these behaviors, especially in comparison to its focus on

verbal sexual consent communication behaviors.

Nonverbal Consent

In addition to observed gender differences in communication behavior patterns, research

has shown that amongst sexual consent communication behaviors, nonverbal sexual consent

communication behaviors are more commonly utilized by all individuals when compared with

verbal communication behaviors (Beres et al. 2004; Hall, 1998; Humphreys, 2007; Jozkowski et

al., 2013). Additionally, despite adoptions by many college campuses, verbal sexual consent

communication behaviors outlined in affirmative consent models rarely reflect the lived

experience of students (Curtis & Burnett, 2017; Hall, 1998; Johnson & Hoover, 2015; Jozkowski

& Humphreys, 2014). For example, Curtis and Burnett (2017) found some participants indicated

little to no experience with affirmative consent as a verbal behavior. One female respondent

noted “…But when I come to think of it in the real-world perspective, I think if you’re going

along with the motions and you’re not showing resistance to it and you’re into it, then that’s

consent” (p. 209 Curtis & Burnett, 2017). This statement corroborates with research on sexual

consent communication behaviors amongst college students which notes preference by

participants in the use of non-resistance as a means conveying consent, and a tendency of some

males to continue with a sexual behavior until they encounter a verbal communication behavior

of non-consent (Beres et al., 2004; Camilleri, et al., 2007; Hall, 1998; Humphreys, 2007;

Jozkowski et al., 2013; King et al., 2020).

Many studies (mostly set amongst the college-aged population) have noted the use of and

preference for nonverbal sexual consent communication behaviors, as a part of the sexual

consent practice (Curtis & Burnett, 2017; Hall, 1998; Humphreys, 2007; Jozkowski & Peterson,

2014; King et al. 2020; Kitzinger & Frith, 1999; McCormick, 1979; Shumlich, & Fisher, 2018).

Nonverbal sexual consent communication behaviors such as smiling, nodding, accepting

alcoholic drinks, following a partner to their residence, and genital stimulation, have all been

evaluated to have a range of meanings when conveying sexual consent to partner (Beres et al.

2004, Humphreys & Herold, 2007; Jozkowski & Peterson, 2014; Orchowski et al. 2018).

Additionally, several studies have documented that gender differences in the perception of

communication behaviors of sexual consent exist in heterosexual interactions, with men utilizing

and watching for more nonverbal sexual communication behaviors (i.e., body language) and

women utilizing more verbal sexual communication behaviors (Abbey, 1982; Hickman &

Muehlenhard, 1999, Jozkowski & Peterson, 2013; King et. al, 2020; Peplau, 2003). In response

to critiques of the limitations of nonverbal sexual consent communication behavior studies

examining one behavior at a time, King et al. (2020) examined college students’ perceptions of

concurrent/ successive nonverbal sexual consent communication behaviors. Again, results of this

study showed differences in the perception of nonverbal sexual consent communication

behaviors with male participants consistently interpreting successive nonverbal sexual consent

communication behaviors as more indicative of sexual consent then their female peers (King et

al., 2020).

As noted above, there is a significant portion of research which documents the existence

of nonverbal sexual consent communication behaviors. These studies share common themes and

outcomes, including a clear preference for nonverbal sexual consent communication behaviors

amongst participants and male participants utilizing nonverbal sexual consent communication

more ardently than their female counterparts (Beres et al. 2004; Curtis & Burnett, 2017).

Additionally, as many young adults lack access to standardized experiences with sexual

education and education centered sexual consent education, many learn concepts of sexual

consent communication from mainstream depictions of consent in films and pornography (Willis

et al., 2019; 2020). A 2019 study of sexual communication and refusal behaviors depiction in the

media, revealed through the analysis of fifty (50) 2013 films’ depictions of sexual consent

communication behaviors between partners were overwhelmingly nonverbal sexual consent

communication behaviors (Jozkowski et al., 2019). Furthermore, a content analysis of popular

pornographic films done by Willis et al. (2020), reveal similar depictions of nonverbal sexual

consent communication behaviors are utilized. Taken together, findings such as these suggest a

mechanism which may lead to the documented preference of college and high school youth

(especially male-identified youth) to rely on and utilize nonverbal sexual consent communication

behaviors (Righi et al. 2019; Nichols Curtis, 2017; King et al. 2020). When taken together, these

findings lend support to the notion of larger societal expectations (cultural scripts) impacting and

influencing individual behaviors (interpersonal scripts) and beliefs/ expectations (intrapsychic

scripts) around nonverbal sexual consent communication behaviors.

Noting the support within the current literature for the existence, preference teaching, of

nonverbal sexual consent communication behaviors- there remains a dearth in our understanding

of these consent communication behaviors. Overwhelmingly, current studies of sexual consent

and sexual consent communication behaviors have been conducted on cisgender, white,

heterosexual, traditionally college-aged students (Beres, 2007; Muehlenhard et al. 2016).

However, several studies have noted the impact of life experiences, especially length of a sexual

partnership and gender socialization, to impact perceptions of sexual consent and sexual consent

communication behaviors (Humphreys, 2007; Willis & Jozkowski, 2019). The concept of sexual

script theory and the heteronormative notion of men being pleasure seekers and women being

gatekeepers play out in many of these majority population studies (Jozkowski, 2017). Taken all

into context, it is important to consider the question of how gender-identity and sexual

orientation may interact and affect conceptions of sexual consent and subscription to and use of

nonverbal sexual consent communication behaviors.

Consent Practices in Underrepresented Communities

Overwhelmingly, the North American understanding of sexual consent and sexual

consent communication behaviors have been derived from the experiences of white, college-

educated, and often heterosexual participants (Beres et al., 2004; Jozkowski, et al., 2014;

Humphreys & Brousseau, 2010; Humphreys & Herold, 2007; Ward et al., 2012). This becomes

incredibly significant when we consider the ample documentation for gender specific patterns of

sexual consent communication behaviors, as well as the different patterns of sexual consent

communication behaviors observed specifically within sub-communities (e.g., MSM, S&M, and

WSM; Frankis & Flowers, 2009; Bullock, 2004;).

Specifically, within the MSM community, an historic emphasis by some members of this

community has been placed on nonverbal communication behaviors in order to avoid detection

and persecution by non-community members (Tewksbury, 1996). Historically MSM members

have engaged in nonverbal communication behaviors such as displaying and wearing specific

items of clothing and accessories, physical demonstrations (e.g., tapping of the foot beneath a

stall) and attending designated public spaces (e.g., parks, rest stops, public restrooms) during

designated hours as a means of conveying to other parties their community membership and

potential sexual interest (Tewksbury, 1996). This behavior among MSM community members

has been titled “cruising” and relies heavily on the use of nonverbal sexual consent

communication behaviors including eye contact, pursuit, display, and body contact (Frankis &

Flowers 2009).

As noted in literature on cruising, the specific set of nonverbal communication behaviors

employed in these areas by community members are designed to communicate sexual interest

and sexual consent to community members, but to hold no meaning for non-community

members. With this purpose in mind, nonverbal communication behaviors utilized in cruising are

an example of communication behaviors that differ from the overarching sexual script for non-

community members (ie. heterosexuals) as is described in much of the current sexual consent

communication research. More contemporarily, research has also been conducted into the use of

and understanding of “gaydar”, a mechanism by which community members employ a “sixth

sense” to assess and utilize nonverbal and verbal behaviors as a means of identifying potential

sexual community membership and potential sexual/romantic partners (Rule & Alaei, 2016).

Our understanding of sexual consent communication behaviors remains at the heart of

sexual miscommunication and thus some sexual violence prevention efforts. Therefore, it is

crucial to better understand sexual consent communication behaviors within non-majority

populations. For instance, when considering sexual violence within the MSM community,

literature notes a disproportionate experience of sexual violence within this population when

compared to their heterosexual peers (Association of American Universities, 2015; CDC, 2017;

Kosciwet al., 2016). Taken together, the disproportionate amount of violence and community

specific behaviors, underscores the need for a more complete understanding of sexual consent

communication behaviors and concepts of sexual consent within this community.

Delphi

The Delphi method is a multi-round approach to consensus building among experts in a

given field. Historically the Delphi has been termed as a means of refining a groups’ judgement

and has been a way of formalizing the power of group wisdom (Dalkey, 1969). The Delphi

methodology allows for individuals with diverse experiences and expertise to independently

share their knowledge and arrive at a consensus regarding a larger idea (Hasson, Keeney, &

McKenna, 2000; Hsu & Sandford, 2007). Additionally, the Delphi method has been successfully

utilized in mental health research regarding best practice and competency, as well as a means of

comparing the knowledge of experts (e.g., researchers, clinicians) and consumers (e.g.,

community stakeholders, patients; Forbes, Hutchison, 2020; Ross, Kelly, Jorm, 2015). As noted

in the exploration of affirmative sexual consent and sexual violence prevention efforts above,

there is a gap between academic best practice (verbal sexual consent communication behaviors)

and the lived experiences of community stake holders regarding their communication of sexual

consent (Curtis & Burnett, 2017). Thus, the Delphi methodology provides an ideal opportunity to

compare and arrive at a group consensus between both researchers and community members

regarding this important topic. Furthermore, considering the Covid-19 pandemic, the Delphi

methodology is an increasingly attractive means of conducting research due to its ability to

collect information and facilitate engagement amongst participants in a socially distant manner

(Khazie, Khan, 2020). Lastly, when working specifically within the sexual minority communities

such as the MSM community, several studies have documented the effectiveness of utilizing

online/ distance methods to engage with this population regarding sexual behaviors and practices

(Bowen, 2005; Ross et al. 2000).

Purpose of the Study

The current study seeks to expand our understanding of sexual consent and nonverbal

sexual consent communication behaviors. Specifically, the current study seeks to address a

dearth in the literature by examining these concepts within the context of two specific

communities--the MSM community and sexuality researchers--by utilizing the Delphi Method

(Dalkey, 1969). Due to the exploratory nature of this study and methodology, there are no

expected results or stated hypotheses for this study. Instead, we seek to determine if consensus

between our two groups can be reached on each of the following primary research questions:

1. What are the qualities of sexual consent?

2. What are the elements of sexual non-consent?

3. What are the behaviors associated with sexual consent communication?

4. What are the ways the group interprets and utilizes nonverbal sexual consent

communication behaviors?

METHODS

In this study, the Delphi method (Dalkey, 1969) was utilized in order to collect and

analyze data through a multifaceted approach. The Delphi method is a group facilitation method

that is performed in stages, with the ultimate goal being the expert panelists arriving at a

consensus opinion regarding the topic at hand (Jorm, 2015; Linstone & Turoff, 1975). The

current study sought to better understand conceptualizations and experience of panelists

regarding sexual consent and sexual consent communication behaviors.

Participants

In line with the establishment of a community-driven and community-consistent

conceptualization of sexual consent and the behaviors utilized in its communication, participants

for this study were recruited through a snowballing campaign. Eligibility for the current study

included participants identifying with one or more of the following criteria:

1. Identifying as a researcher of human sexuality, sexual violence, or sexual violence

prevention (of any gender identity or sexual orientation).

2. Identifying as a member of the MSM community, who acknowledges having a history of

a sexual experience with another male-identified person.

In addition to the above inclusionary criteria participants were also included based of their

willingness to participate in a multiple-round study, having adequate time and internet access, as

well as their ability to read and write effectively in the English language (Skulmoski et al.,

2007).

Our initial panel (Round One) consisted of a total of 35 unique participants who

completed the survey; a complete list of their demographic information can be found in Table 1.

Participants Round One ranged in age from 18 to 55, with a little over 50% of participants

identifying as members of the MSM community. Participants also presented with racial ethnic

diversity with 34% of participants identifying as a member of a racial or ethnic minority group

and 66% identifying as white. Similarly, participants in Round One also presented with various

relationship statuses with 66% indicating they were in a relationship and 34% indicating they

were single. Participants in Round one also presented with a long history of experiences in

higher education with 92% or participants indicating they were a college graduate or had post-

graduate training.

Proceeding to Round Two, 20 respondents completed the second-round survey making

up our panel in this round, a complete list of their demographic information can also be found in

Table 1. Despite some attrition, Round Two’s participants presented with similar representation

of diverse experiences and identities as seen in Round One. Despite attrition of 15 participants,

proportionally demographics of Round Two participants remained largely the same with a

majority of participants identifying as male, and as members of the MSM community.

In the final round, Round Three, a total of 18 participants completed the survey making

up our third-round panel. With an attrition of two, demographics between Round Two and

Round Three largely remain the same. Fifty-one percent of participants (n=18) completed all

three rounds of this Delphi study, the complete list of participants demographics can be found in

Table 1 . A majority of participants in all three rounds identified as MSM community members,

ranging in age (23-55). When compared to Round One, the participants in the final survey are

less diverse in their educational experiences with 100% of the final sample having college and

post graduate experience.

Table 1

Delphi Rounds 1,2,3, Panelist Demographics

Table 1

Round 1

Round 2

Round 3

Demographic

N (35)

N (20)

N (18)

Age

18- 22

23-30

32%

40%

44%

31-40

48%

40%

44%

41- 55

14%

10%

Prefer not to answer

Stakeholder Status

Sexual Researcher (SR)*

37%

35%

33%

MSM Community

member (MSM)

63%

65%

67%

Gender identity

Male

77%

75%

72%

Female

23%

25%

28%

Sexual Orientation

Gay

70%

67%

Lesbian

Bisexual

10%

12%

Queer

Heterosexual

11%

10%

Relationship Status

In a relationship

66%

60%

61%

Single and Actively

Seeking a committed

relationship

17%

20%

22%

Single and Casually

Dating

Single and not dating

14%

20%

17%

Nature of relationship

N (23)

N (12)

N (11)

Monogamous

83%

81%

Monogamish (mostly

monogamous)

17%

19%

Open

Race

European American

66%

80%

83%

African American

11%

10%

Asian American

Hispanic

Mena

Native Hawaiian

Asian

Education

Postgraduate

66%

70%

72%

College Graduate

26%

25%

28%

Some College

Completed 12 years or

HS equivalent

Note. *Two Sexual researchers identify as MSM community members and are noted as (MSR)

Procedure

As noted, the Delphi method is an ideal methodology for gathering consensus amongst

community stakeholders and experts to define a large broad concept such as consent (Forbes,

2020; Jorm, 2015). Following institutional review board approval (UND IRB-201811-094), in

line with the Delphi methodology, participants are recruited and asked to engage in a multi-

round study coordinated by a researcher (Jorm, 2015). In the current study, participants were

identified and recruited through a snowballing methodology by both reviewing current literature

and authorship in sexual violence, sexual violence prevention, and human sexuality, as well as

outreach to MSM specific groups and listservs. Once identified, participants were also invited to

nominate parties who may fit the criteria for the population to also join the study.

Participation in this study was done exclusively online through Qualtrics, which is in line

with both methodological best practice and health board best practice (Ross, 2000). In Round

One, participants were provided with either a personalized link or anonymous link which

outlined risks and benefits and were asked to complete a 33-item questionnaire which consisted

of three distinct tasks. Task one of this questionnaire collected participants’ demographic

information. During task two of Round One, participants were asked to provide broad opinions

on the topic of sexual consent via open-ended questions. Finally, task three of Round One asked

participants to review a list of communicative behaviors associated with consent and provide

feedback on that list (Beres 2010). Following the completion of Round One, the open-ended data

collected from the 35 unique participants was qualitatively analyzed and used to construct the

Round Two survey.

In line with the Delphi methodology, data from Round One was collected, analyzed, and

collated to create the Round Two survey (Jorm,2015). During Round Two the first task asked

participants to review and provide feedback regarding their level of agreement with their peers'

qualitative responses (31 in all) to the question “How would you describe sexual consent (Q48)”.

More specifically, after reviewing an individual Round One qualitative response, participants

were asked to note their level of agreement with their peers’ statement on a 5-point Likert scale 1

(This does not adequately describe sexual consent) to 5 (This very much describes sexual

consent).

The second task of Round Two invited participants to provide narrative feedback on the

six broad qualities of consent that were derived (by the researcher) from participant responses to

Q48 in Round One. The third task of Round Two asked respondents to rank order the six broad

qualities of consent in order from importance (ranking 1-6, with 1 as most important). In the

fourth and final task of Round Two, participants were asked to provide their thoughts on sexual

non-consent through a response to a set of open-ended questions which included “How would

you describe sexual non-consent?” 20 participants from Round One (57%) completed Round

Two of this three-round study.

Round Three of this three-round study consisted of four distinct tasks that participants

were asked to complete. The first task consisted of asking participants to review their peers’

responses to the Q72 of Round Two and provide feedback regarding their level of agreement

with their peers’ conceptualization of sexual non-consent. Specifically, participants were asked

to note their level of agreement with peers’ statements on a 5-point Likert scale 1 (This does not

adequately describe sexual non-consent) to 5 (This very much describes sexual non-consent).

The second task of Round Three asked participants to review five elements of sexual

non-consent which were derived (by the researcher) from the groups’ open-ended responses to

Q72 in Round Two Following their review of these five elements of sexual non-consent,

participants were again asked to provide feedback and to rank order the elements of sexual non-

consent in terms of impact (ranking 1-5, with one as the most impactful). In the third task of

Round Three, participants were provided with their personal rank ordering of consent qualities

collected in Round Two and asked to compare their personal positioning with the groups’

collective rankings of consent qualities. After comparing these rankings, participants were asked

to confirm their personal rankings.

The final task of Round Three asked participants to review qualities of sexual consent

and elements of sexual non-consent as determined by the group. Following their review of these

items, participants were asked to review and sort a list of nonverbal behaviors of sexual consent

communication derived from the group’s responses in round one and sort them into groups based

on their perceived function (i.e., do the individual items represent Consent Giving Behavior,

Consent Seeking Behavior, Interchangeable Consent Behavior, Ambiguous consent Behavior, or

Consent Refusal Behavior). For Round Three, 18 of the 20 respondents to Round Two (90%)

completed all four tasks.

Data Analysis

In line with the Delphi methodology, a mixed method approach was used to assess the

qualitative and quantitative data collected as part of this study (Skulmoski, Hartman, & Krahn,

2007). A key element of Delphi studies is the reaching of consensus on an issue by a panel of

experts (Jorm, 2015). Formally there are no guidelines for establishing consensus within a given

delphi study, therefore, in the current study a novel and new three-tiered system of group

agreement was established in order to better determine the level of and reveal the nuances of

agreement amongst participants (Jorm 2015; Nair et al. 2011; Waggoner, Carline, Durning,

2016). The top tier of this three-tier system was termed Major Consensus, which was met when

90% of participants of the study were in agreement on an issue as demonstrated by their

responses on the Likert scale. The second tier was termed Consensus and was reached when 70%

of participants indicating agreement on a singular issue as demonstrated by their responses on the

Likert scale. The final tier was termed Endorsement and consists of 50 % of participants

indicating agreement on an issue as demonstrated by their responses on the Likert scale.

Similarly, when examining qualitative data in Delphi studies there are few guidelines in

place for data analysis, thus for this study a grounded constructivist framework was applied for

the data analysis with the adoption of an outside reader to increase trustworthiness (Chamaz,

2008; Skulmoski, et al. 2007; Krippendorff, 2015). The grounded constructivist framework was

selected for its usefulness in analyzing data for major themes, as well as its emphasis on the role

of the researcher and the lens by which they view and interpret the data (Chamaz, 2008). In the

current study, the author thoroughly read the data before attempting to code responses (with both

open coding and axial coding), kept a journal (“memoing”) to utilize the reflective process,

utilized a reader to provide an additional point of view, and provided participants with

opportunities to provide feedback regarding the coding process (Chamaz, 2008).

Data Analysis Round One

During Round One, qualitative responses to question 48 were collected and analyzed

using a grounded constructivist framework. Responses were initially de-identified by the first

author and reviewed for key elements in the responses. Key elements included overall ideas or

statements indicated by a participant as being central to their notion of sexual consent (Chamaz,

2008). Following the highlighting of key elements, seven overarching codes were developed, and

responses were sorted along those codes for subsequent analysis. Utilizing the constructivist

grounded framework (Chamaz, 2008), responses were analyzed for content to derive six overall

qualities.

Data Analysis Round Two

Following the collection of qualitative data in round one, the group was asked to establish

consensus regarding the descriptions of sexual consent provided by the group, utilizing a five-

point Likert scale. The mean and standard deviation was used as a mechanism to indicate

participants' overall level of agreeance to the sexual consent descriptions and help inform

whether consensus was reached. In the current study, consensus was defined according to the

percentage of participants who fell in agreement regarding a description. Major Consensus was

defined as at least 90% of participants selecting a 4 or 5 on the Likert scale, Consensus was

defined as at least 70% of respondents selecting a 4 or 5 on the Likert scale, and an Endorsement

was at least 50% of participants selecting a 4 or 5 on the Likert scale (Bono, 2017; Jorm 2015;

Nair, Aggarwal, Khanna, 2011; Waggoner, Carline, Durning, 2016).

Finally, data was collected from Round Two to help construct the Round 3 survey.

Participant’s initial rank order positions of six qualities of sexual consent were collected and

averaged to construct an initial ranking. Additionally, during the second round, 20 qualitative

responses were gathered to question 72 regarding elements of sexual non-consent. Again,

utilizing a grounded constructivist framework, responses were analyzed and coded into five

elements of sexual non-consent (Table 10).

Data Analysis Round Three

Participants in Round Three were asked to review their peers’ response to question 72 regarding

descriptions of sexual non-consent via a Likert scale. Means and standard deviation were used to

help determine which tier of group agreement was met (e.g., Major Consensus ≥90%, Consensus

≥70%, Endorsement ≥ 50%). Additionally, participants in round three were asked to review their

initial individual rank order positions of sexual consent qualities and re-rank these qualities after

comparing them to the group aggregate. Again, results from these rankings were collected and

analyzed by the percentage of group agreement. Next, participants were also asked to review and

rank a list of elements of non-consent during this task which was analyzed for consensus based

on the three-tiered group agreement system.

The final task of Round Three asked participants to sort a list of nonverbal consent

behaviors among six categories of usage (Consent Giving Behavior, Consent Seeking Behavior,

Interchangeable Consent Behavior, Ambiguous consent Behavior, Consent Refusal Behavior,

Unused behavior). The tiered system of agreement was utilized sorted a given behavior into a

usage category. Additionally, a chi-square analysis was run to examine for significant differences

in sorting of behavior usage by group membership (SR vs. MSM).

RESULTS

Across three rounds, the current study gathered data from participants regarding their

conceptualization of sexual consent and consent communication behaviors. Participants

consisted of researchers of human sexuality, sexual violence, and sexual violence prevention, as

well as MSM community members. Throughout each round both qualitative and quantitative

data was gathered in order to better understand sexual consent and its’ nonverbal communication

practices. The current study sought to explore three topics, including sexual consent, sexual non-

consent, and nonverbal communication behaviors associated with sexual consent. In the

following results section, each of the subjects is discussed in depth covering each subject and its

exploration through all three rounds of the study.

Sexual Consent Results

In Round One, participants were asked to respond to the open-ended prompt of “How

would you describe sexual consent?” participants provided 34 unique qualitative descriptions of

sexual consent. These responses were analyzed with three responses being consolidated due to

similar content for a total of 31 descriptions (Charmaz, 2008, see left panel of Table 2).The 31

descriptions of sexual consent formed the central data for open and axial coding. Six broad

categories emerged from the coding of the 31 descriptions and these were used to construct six

broad qualities of sexual consent shown below:

1. Sexual consent should be mutual between all parties.

2. Sexual consent should be permission granting/ affirming.

3. Sexual consent should be confirmed via verbal and non-verbal behaviors.

4. Sexual consent should be freely/given without influence.

5. Sexual consent should be ongoing.

6. Sexual consent should be reversible/ revocable.

Sexual Consent quality one, was derived from Broad category (1) Mutual Agreement.

Descriptions coded with Mutual Agreement noted the need for a mutuality of agreement or

consent between parties. Seventeen responses were coded with Mutual Agreement, a sample

response coded with Mutual Agreement was: “Sexual consent is mutual agreement to engage in a

sexual activity while setting specific boundaries”.

Broad category (2) Permission Granting/ Affirming was utilized when a description noted

an element of permission granting or affirmation behaviors as part of the consent process. This

code was utilized a total of 15 times and is best exemplified by the description “Sexual consent is

the active and ongoing affirmation that sexual activity is desired or welcomed. Affirmation

includes verbal and nonverbal communication.”

Broad category (3) is Confirmed via verbal and non-verbal behaviors, which was used

when Response notes an explicit need for verbal or nonverbal confirmation among parties. A

total of six descriptions utilized this code and it is best exemplified by the description:

“Consistent with muehlenhard et als review paper, an explicit agreement to do something. can be

communicated verbally or nonverbally”.

The next broad category (4) Freely Given/ Without Influence was used when a

description noted that lack of coercion, substance induced influence is necessary when giving

consent. A total of six descriptions were coded with Freely Given/ Without influence and this

category is best exemplified by the description: “Sexual consent is a mutual agreement between

2 or more people to engage in sexual activity - without coercion or compensation. All people

must be capable of consenting and agreeing.”

Broad Category (5) Ongoing was utilized with descriptions which noted consent is a

continuous process and must be present for the duration of activity. Ongoing was used for a total

of six descriptions and is best exemplified by the statement: “When adult confirms…This

confirmation must be present for the duration of the sexual activity…”.

Broad Category (6) Reversible, was used with descriptions that noted that consent has

elements that are reversible or revocable. This code was used a total of four times and is best

exemplified by the description: “Permission to engage sexual activity from the other person(s).

This permission can be rescinded at any time before, during, or after.”

In Round Two, participants reviewed the 31 original descriptions of sexual consent

collected in Round One, as well as the six qualities of sexual consent. In the first part of Round

Two, participants rated the 31 original descriptions of sexual consent on a five-point Likert scale

with 1 being “This does not adequately describe consent” and 5 “This very much describes

consent”. Table 2 records the mean, standard deviation, and variation of the groups’ responses to

each description of sexual consent. Additionally, Table 2 notes the consensus percentage for

each response, specifically the number of participants who indicate a four or five on the Likert

scale. Of the 31 descriptions rated in round two, 24 descriptions (77%) met some form of group

agreement. Descriptions number ten and seven also met group consensus with majority rating

these statements negatively with a 1 or 2 on the Likert scale and thus were not included in the

analysis of table 2. Of those 22 descriptions with a positive level of agreement, 7 descriptions

(31%) reached a Major Consensus with 90% of participants indicating a four or five on the

Likert scale; 5 descriptions (22%) reached Consensus with 70% of participants indicating a four

or five on the Likert scale; and 10 descriptions (45%) reached an endorsement of the group with

50% of the group indicating a four or five on the Likert scale. Finally, Table 2 also records

limited demographic information of the participants who make up the consensus response.

Specifically, means, SD and consensus percentage of stakeholder groups are recorded in Table

Two denoted by their abbreviation.

Table 2,

Round 2, Level of Agreement to Descriptions of Consent 1(This does not adequately describe

consent) to 5 (This very much describes consent) with Mean, Standard Deviation, and Variance

Table 2

Description

Conse

nsus

1. I imagine 2 formal variations in

consent:1) Responding in the affirmative to

a suggestion for sexual activity (responding

by saying “yes” to a verbal, physical, or

otherwise suggestive (look, gesture, body or

body-part positioning or repositioning)

request to engage in sexual activity); or2)

Panel

4.0

1.07

80%

(n=16)

4.0

.70

80%

Initiating the above expressed suggestion to

engage in sexual activity. However, a

caveat I would like to mention is that

perceived consent from one party may not

be the actual expression of consent by the

other. **

(n = 4)

MSM

4.0

1.2

77%

(n=

10)

MSR

4.0

100%

(n = 2)

2. Two adults confirming they are

comfortable with engaging in sexual

activity.**

Panel

4.1

.78

75%

(n=15)

4.0

100%

(n = 5)

MSM

4.3

.85

77%

(n=

10)

MSR

3.0

3. Having permission and agreement from a

partner(s) to engage in a sexual act that is

not coerced or influenced in any one.***

Panel

4.3

.74

90%

(n=

18)

4.4

.89

80%

(n = 4)

MSM

4.38

.76

80%

(n =

12)

MSR

4.0

100%

(n = 2)

4. I would describe sexual consent as the

effective communication of ongoing,

affirming, equitable, relational decisions

regarding sexual choice among partners of

free-will. ***

Panel

4.55

.82

90%

(n=

18)

100%

(n = 5)

MSM

4.30

.94

84%

(n =

11)

MSR

5.0

100%

(n = 2)

5. Sexual consent is an ongoing process to

engage in sexual activities with another

person. Sexual consent can be withdrawn at

any time and for any reason. Some

individuals are unable to give sexual consent

due to the undue influence of power to obtain

that consent (e.g. children, individuals in

police custody, people with advanced

dementia). ***

Panel

4.6

.81

90%

(n=

18)

5.0

100%

(n = 5)

MSM

4.69

.63

92%

(n =

12)

MSR

3.5

2.12

50%

(n = 1)

6. Mutual and unambiguous understanding

between all parties that a sexual activity is

desired and being entered into and

participated in without coercion,

exploitation, or abuse. ***

Panel

4.5

.75

95%

(n=19)

4.4

.54

100%

(n = 5)

MSM

4.61

.63

92%

(n =

12)

MSR

4.5

..5

100%

(n = 2)

7. consistent with muehlenhard et als review

paper, an explicit agreement to do

something. can be communicated verbally

or nonverbally

Panel

3.1

1.2

35%

(n= 7)

1.58

40%

(n = 2)

MSM

3.15

1.34

38%

(n = 5)

MSR

3.0

8. All parties being of sound mind to give

verbal permission to engage in any activity

believed to be, or identified as, sexual

Panel

3.5

1.1

45%

(n=9)

2.4

MSM

3.92

1.03

61%

(n = 8)

MSR

3.5

50%

(n = 1)

9. Sexual consent is when both people agree

on a specific act when intimate with each

other.

Panel

3.3

.87

40%

(n=8)

2.8

.75

20%

(n =1)

MSM

3.92

1.34

46%

(n = 6)

MSR

3.5

50%

(n = 1)

10. A verbal agreement between two

consenting adults

Panel

2.5

1.2

25%

(n=5)

1.6

.75

60%

(n = 3)

MSM

2.92

1.32

15%

(n = 2)

MSR

2.5

11. Permission to engage sexual activity

from the other person(s). This permission

can be rescinded at any time before, during,

or after. **

Panel

4.05

.88

75%

=15)

3.6

.24

60%

(n = 3)

MSM

4.46

.66

92%

(n =

12)

MSR

2.5

12. Sexual consent is mutual agreement to

engage in a sexual activity while setting

specific boundaries *

Panel

3.9

.78

65%

(n=13)

3.8

.83

80%

(n = 4)

MSM

4.0

.81

61%

(n = 8)

MSR

3.5

50%

(n = 1)

13. psychological, emotional, and spiritual

permission delivered in an active process for

one or more sexual activities to occur. *

Panel

3.6

1.1

60%

(n=

12)

3.4

1.5

60%

(n = 3)

MSM

3.76

1.0

61%

(n = 8)

MSR

3.5

.50

50%

(n = 1)

14. Sexual consent is when someone

knowingly participates in and allows sexual

activity with another person.

Panel

3.5

1.1

45 %

(n= 9)

3.6

1.1

60%

(n = 3)

MSM

3.7

1.1

46%

(n = 6)

MSR

2.0

15. Sexual consent is the active and ongoing

affirmation that sexual activity is desired or

welcomed. Affirmation includes verbal and

nonverbal communication. ***

Panel

4.6

.59

95%

(n=19)

4.6

.54

100%

(n = 5)

MSM

4.53

.66

92%

(n =

12)

MSR

5.0

100%

(n = 2)

16. When all participants of a sexual

encounter want the encounter to happen at

that time.

Panel

3.0

1.1

40 %

(n=8)

.89

40%

(n = 2)

MSM

3.15

1.28

46%

(n = 6)

MSR

2.5

17. When the other person allows to have

sex with you

Panel

2.2

1.1

15%

(n=3)

1.4

.49

MSM

2.53

1.19

23%

(n = 3)

MSR

1.5

18. When both parties give a verbal

confirmation of what is ok and not ok to

engage with. This confirmation can be

reinforced or revoked at any time.

Panel

3.3

1.3

40%

(n=8)

2.2

.75

MSM

3.76

1.30

61%

(n = 8)

MSR

3.0

1.0

50%

(n = 1)

19. Consent is between two people. As long

as 2 people say yes then it is good to go.

Consent can be withdrawn at any time.

Anyone who has had some mind altering

substances or are unconscious will

automatically not give consent.

Panel

3.0

1.2

30%

(n= 6)

2.2

.75

MSM

3.46

1.2

46%

(n = 6)

MSR

2.5

20. Agreement on terms of what areas to

touch and what types of sexual contact to

use (oral, anal, etc).*

Panel

3.2

1.1

50%

(n=

10)

2.8

1.17

40%

(n = 2)

MSM

3.46

1.05

54%

(n = 7)

MSR

2.5

1.5

50%

(n = 1)

21. Freely given agreement to sexual

activities *

Panel

3.3

1.5

50 %

(n=10)

3.2

1.30

40%

(n = 2)

MSM

3.38

1.5

54%

(n = 7)

MSR

3.0

2.82

50%

(n = 1)

22. Sexual consent is if all participating

members agree to the sexual activities being

presented. Sexual consent cannot be

obtained when one or more party members

are under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or

altered mental health state. *

Panel

3.6

1.4

60%

(n=12)

2.8

.1.30

23%

(n = 3)

MSM

4.07

1.03

69%

(n = 9)

MSR

3.0

23. When an adult confirms that a specific

sexual activity is okay with them, and this

confirmation is shared by all parties

involved in the sexual activity. All involved

parties must actually be able to knowingly

confirm their approval of involvement in the

sexual activity. This confirmation must be

present for the duration of the sexual

activity. Any party involved in the sexual

activity may choose to no longer participate

at any time during the sexual activity, at

which time they would no longer give their

consent or confirmation to continue. All

involved parties must agree to these terms

for the sexual activity to be considered

consensual. ***

Panel

4.25

.96

95%

(n=19)

3.2

1.09

100%

(n = 5)

MSM

4.61

.65

92%

(n =

12)

MSR

4.5

100%

(n = 2)

24. I would describe consent as the

agreement of two interested parties to

engage in agreed upon sexual activities.

Panel

3.4

1.0

45%

(n=9)

3.0

.89

40%

(n = 2)

MSM

3.69

1.10

54%

(n = 7)

MSR

3.0

25. It's when the other person clearly

indicates they wish a sexual act to happen.

This could be verbal, written or through

body language (although that's a harder line

to define).*

Panel

3.4

1.1

55%

(n=11)

.89

40%

(n = 2)

MSM

3.61

1.26

61%

(n = 8)

MSR

3.5

50%

(n = 1)

26. A fluid and reversible assertion that all

members of a sexual scene are present and

readily willing to engage in the acts being

proposed. *

Panel

4.0

.88

75%

(n=15)

3.8

.83

60%

(n = 3)

MSM

4.2

.92

84%

(n =

11)

MSR

3.5

50%

(n = 1)

27. Establishing a clear agreement that both

partners would like to have a sexual

encounter.*

Panel

3.6

.88

55%

(n=11)

3.4

.80

60%

(n = 3)

MSM

3.7

.92

61%

(n = 8)

MSR

3.0

28. Sexual consent is a mutual agreement

between 2 or more people to engage in

sexual activity - without coercion or

compensation. All people must be capable

of consenting and agreeing. **

Panel

3.9

1.2

70%

(n=

14)

4.2

1.09

60%

(n = 3)

MSM

3.9

1.44

77%

(n=

10)

MSR

3.5

.50

50%

(n = 1)

29. [s]exual consent is both a cognitive

decision and a behavioural display (verbal

or nonverbal), signaling a willingness (free

from coercion/ incapacitation) to engage in

sexual activity. ***

Panel

4.2

.61

90%

(n=

18)

4.8

.44

100%

(n = 5)

MSM

4.07

.49

92%

(n =

12)

MSR

3.5

.50

50%

(n = 1)

30.Sexual Consent is a verbal or nonverbal

agreement between two adults to engage in

sexual acts with one another. Sexual consent

can be either clearly defined or implied

depending on the setting of the encounter

and habits of the individuals. *

Panel

3.3

.92

50%

(n=

10)

2.6

.54

40%

(n = 2)

MSM

3.69

.85

61%

(n = 8)

MSR

2.5

.25

31.Sexual consent is the permission by

another to engage in a sexual act. The

consent involves complete choice from the

other without substance coercion or force.

Panel

3.9

1.0

75%

(n=

15)

4.4

.89

80%

(n = 4)

MSM

3.92

1.15

77%

(n=

10)

MSR

3.0

1.0

50%

(n = 1)

*Note. Level of agreement * Endorsement = > 50% participant agreement ; ** Consensus =

>70% participant agreement *** Major Consensus = >90% participant agreement

As part of Round Two, qualitative feedback was also collected from participants

regarding their reactions to peers’ descriptions of sexual consent collected in Round One. Table

3 contains the qualitative comments made by participants in response to peers’ descriptions of

sexual consent. Comments were sorted by description reference number and according to

stakeholder status. Table 3 highlights the diverse opinions amongst participants, particularly

around the use jargon and the importance of elements of sexual consent.

Table 3

Round 2, Task 1, Qualitative Feedback to participants descriptions of Sexual Consent

Table 3

How would you

describe sexual

consent?

Qualitative Comments

Sexual Researcher

MSM

Both

1. I imagine 2

formal variations in

consent:1)

Responding in the

affirmative to a

suggestion for

sexual activity

(responding by

saying “yes” to a

verbal, physical, or

otherwise

suggestive (look,

gesture, body or

body-part

the "initiating" part

of number 1

confuses me a little

bit.

The first statement was very

confusing. The first half made

total sense to me but the

second half starting with "I

would like to add a caveat"

lost me. Even after rereading

it, I still don't quite understand

it.

I found the wording and

grammar of many of these

responses confusing and so

I'm not fully sure I understood

the point you were trying to

positioning or

repositioning)

request to engage in

sexual activity);

or2) Initiating the

above expressed

suggestion to

engage in sexual

activity. However,

a caveat I would

like to mention is

that perceived

consent from one

party may not be

the actual

expression of

consent by the

other. **

get across. Particularly

number one which has a

number of parentheticals.

2. Two adults

confirming they are

comfortable with

engaging in sexual

activity. **

Honest question

about #2 - can

minors "consent" to

one another in some

form if they're both

minors? That's what

threw me off,

though I'm unsure

of the answer, so

maybe it's fine as it

is.

Statement two is the most

basic of the five but all five

allow for a clear picture of

what consent should be.

Comments 2, 3, and 4 do not

mention specific means of

communicating consent

between participants.

3. Having

permission and

agreement from a

partner(s) to engage

in a sexual act that

is not coerced or

influenced in any

one. ***

I like 3 and 4

because they

capture it so

snappily.

I especially agree with the

emphasis in 3, 4, 5 about the

importance of ongoing

communication and the ability

to withdraw consent, as well

as the importance of equity

and the role that power

dynamics play.

Comments 2, 3, and 4 do not

mention specific means of

communicating consent

between participants.

3, 4, and 5 each bring in pieces

of equity, free-will, or power

dynamics that must be taken

into consideration of

participating parties, which I

also see as essential to

consent.

4. I would describe

sexual consent as

the effective

communication of

ongoing, affirming,

equitable, relational

decisions regarding

sexual choice

among partners of

free-will.***

4 and 5 include that

consent is an

ongoing process,

which I see as a key

component in the

definition.

I like 3 and 4

because they

capture it so

snappily.

No 4 does not include

reference to accepting sexual

activity, it simply states that

sexual choice is

communicated. This sounds

more like declaring

preferences than actually

engaging in sex.

I especially agree with the

emphasis in 3, 4, 5 about the

importance of ongoing

communication and the ability

to withdraw consent, as well

as the importance of equity

and the role that power

dynamics play.

3, 4, and 5 each bring in pieces

of equity, free-will, or power

dynamics that must be taken

into consideration of

participating parties, which I

also see as essential to

consent.

Comments 2, 3, and 4 do not

mention specific means of

communicating consent

between participants.

5. Sexual consent is

an ongoing process

to engage in sexual

activities with

another person.

Sexual consent can

be withdrawn at

any time and for

any reason. Some

individuals are

unable to give

sexual consent due

to the undue

influence of power

to obtain that

consent (e.g.

children,

individuals in

police custody,

people with

advanced

dementia). ***

5. I like the notion

that consent can be

withdrawn and

limits of ability to

give consent.

4 and 5 include that

consent is an

ongoing process,

which I see as a key

component in the

definition.

No. 5 States that consent is the

process of engaging in sexual

activities and leaves out

reference to approving sexual

acts.

3, 4, and 5 each bring in pieces

of equity, free-will, or power

dynamics that must be taken

into consideration of

participating parties, which I

also see as essential to

consent.

I especially agree with the

emphasis in 3, 4, 5 about the

importance of ongoing

communication and the ability

to withdraw consent, as well

as the importance of equity

and the role that power

dynamics play.

Referencing

answers 1-5

Some are more detailed than

others. Some...I just don't

understand the words to be

frank. I almost interpreted the

rating as a ranking of sorts

("Oh, that one seems more

true").

6. Mutual and

unambiguous

understanding

between all parties

that a sexual

activity is desired

and being entered

into and

participated in

without coercion,

#6 - Was very strong

definition!

exploitation, or

abuse. ***

7. Consistent with

muehlenhard et als

review paper, an

explicit agreement

to do something.

can be

communicated

verbally or

nonverbally

Comment 7 makes reference

to a source I am not familiar

with so I cannot fully

determine whether I agree

with the comment.

And 7 is all-around a nope for

me.

No 7 - I am not aware of

research by Muehlenhard.

#7 - I have no idea what

muehlenhard et als is so I feel

like I cannot judge it fairly!

8. All parties being

of sound mind to

give verbal

permission to

engage in any

activity believed to

be, or identified as,

sexual

Comments 8 and 10 limit the

expression of consent to

spoken word. Based on

experience, there are instances

when two or more people

agree to engage in sexual

activity without a single word

spoken. These comments do

not adequately describe

consent as they exclude non-

verbal gestures and body

language which are important

mediums of communication.

8 doesn't go far enough -

"sound mind" doesn't cover

coercion, power.

8. Excludes nonverbal

consent. "Sound mind" is not

explained.

9. Sexual consent is

when both people

agree on a specific

act when intimate

with each other.

9 is pretty good but

doesn't mention

coercion or power.

9 does not account for power

dynamics.

No 9 does not include

reference to sexual partners

being able to give consent (i.e.

children or coercion pressure)

9. Exclusionary to

polyamorous folx

10. A verbal

agreement between

two consenting

adults

10 asserts that

consent must be

verbal, which is not

always the case.

10. What does it

mean to be a

consenting adult?

Comments 8 and 10 limit the

expression of consent to

spoken word. Based on

experience, there are instances

when two or more people

agree to engage in sexual

activity without a single word

spoken. These comments do

not adequately describe

consent as they exclude non-

verbal gestures and body

language which are important

mediums of communication.

10s [sic] just naming the thing

as the definition.

No 10 on references a verbal

agreement. There are non

verbal ways to give consent,

specifically physical touch.

Referencing

answers 6-10

It seems that due to

several reasons,

verbal agreements

may often be

important, but are

complicated. Some

people do not have

verbal ability, some

are not able to hear,

and some sexual

acts may make

verbal discussion

difficult. And while

I don't disagree with

the spirit of verbal

consent, and often

consider it

important, I think

that it's the

underlying shared

communication

process among

individuals that is

most important.

11. Permission to

engage sexual

activity from the

other person(s).

This permission can

be rescinded at any

time before, during,

or after.

These are all pretty

good. I gave # 11,

12, and 13 ratings

of 4 instead of 5

because now that

I've seen the

strength of

definitions that

explicitly address

coercion and power,

definitions that

don't make note of

that feel lacking

Comments 11 and 12 are

vague and not specific in

describing how consent is

communicated between

participants.

No 11 and 12 exclude the

requirement that those giving

consent must be capable of

giving consent.

12. Sexual

consent is mutual

agreement to

engage in a sexual

activity while

setting specific

boundaries *

These are all pretty

good. I gave # 11,

12, and 13 ratings

of 4 instead of 5

because now that

I've seen the

strength of

definitions that

explicitly address

coercion and power,

definitions that

don't make note of

that feel lacking

Comments 11 and 12 are

vague and not specific in

describing how consent is

communicated between

participants.

No 11 and 12 exclude the

requirement that those giving

consent must be capable of

giving consent.

Establishing boundaries per 12

is important.

Strongest page so far! I like

#12 discussing boundaries!

13. psychological,

emotional, and

spiritual permission

delivered in an

active process for

one or more sexual

activities to occur.

These are all pretty

good. I gave # 11,

12, and 13 ratings

of 4 instead of 5

because now that

I've seen the

strength of

definitions that

explicitly address

coercion and power,

definitions that

don't make note of

that feel lacking.

It is hard to discern the

differences between many of

these things. I wouldn't even

know how to describe

"spiritual permission", perhaps

someone's definition of that is

something I would agree is

part of sexual consent.

No 13 does not include

acknowledgement of consent

to your partner and excludes

communication.

14. Sexual consent

is when someone

knowingly

participates in and

allows sexual

activity with

another person.

15. Sexual consent

is the active and

ongoing affirmation

that sexual activity

is desired or

welcomed.

Affirmation

includes verbal and

nonverbal

communication.

***

Referencing 11-15

The idea of

permission or

allowing one partner

to engage in sexual

activity seems

potentially passive

to me, and active

consent seems

essential.

Referencing 11-15.

16. When all

participants of a

sexual encounter

want the encounter

to happen at that

time.

16 is technically

100% accurate

(actually, the most

accurate of any of

these!!) but if only,

if only we could

KNOW when

someone wants

something without

all this

verbal/nonverbal

stuff..

Comment 16 does not provide

specifics of how consent is

communicated between

participants..

No 16, 17, and 20 exclude

person being able to give

consent.

16. Needs more information

regarding communication or

what is meant by a sexual

"encounter."

16 and 17 do not give an

adequate description of how

consent is given and what it

does.

17. When the

other person allows

to have sex with

you

17 is....strange.

Comment 17, because a

person allows you to have sex

with them does not

automatically mean they want

the sexual activity to occur. A

participant could be coerced,

under the influence of an

outside force, or not of sound

mind.

No 16, 17, and 20 exclude

person being able to give

consent.

17. This definition feels too

"black and white" to describe

consent - nothing about it

being an ongoing process,

establishing boundaries, nor

does it explain what is meant

by sex and how that can vary.

17 is missing the importance

of equity and power dynamics.

#17 - Is very concerning and I

think could use some more

detail. This sounds very one

sided

16 and 17 do not give an

adequate description of how

consent is given and what it

does.

18. When both

parties give a

verbal confirmation

of what is ok and

not ok to engage

with. This

confirmation can be

reinforced or

revoked at any

time.

Comments 18 and 19 limit

communication to verbal

medium, leaving out non-

verbal means of

communication.

18 is delineating do's and

DONTs. the dont's don't seem

to be a requirement of consent

but are advisable.

In response to #18, consent

does not always have to be

verbal.

No 18 only allows for verbal

consent. Non verbal consent

exists.

19. Consent is

between two

people. As long as

2 people say yes

then it is good to

go. Consent can be

withdrawn at any

time. Anyone who

has had some mind

altering substances

or are unconscious

will automatically

not give consent.

19. Only applies to

monogamous

individuals.

Comments 18 and 19 limit

communication to verbal

medium, leaving out non-

verbal means of

communication.

No 19 only references

substances as blocking ability

to give consent but there are

other causes (Age, mental

health, etc.)

19 highlights use of

substances as a factor.

20. Agreement on

terms of what areas

to touch and what

types of sexual

contact to use (oral,

anal, etc). *

Comment 20 is not specific on

how communication is

accomplished.

No 16, 17, and 20 exclude

person being able to give

consent.

Referencing 16-20

The grammar, informality, and

spelling makes this hard to do.

Sex sometimes

involves more than

two people and

consent should not

be definitionally

limited to any

number of

participants.

21. Freely given

agreement to sexual

activities. *

Comments 21-24 are not

specific on the means by

which the communication for

consent occurs

22. Sexual consent

is if all

participating

members agree to

the sexual activities

being presented.

Sexual consent

cannot be obtained

when one or more

party members are

under the influence

of drugs, alcohol,

or altered mental

health state. *

Comments 21-24 are not

specific on the means by

which the communication for

consent occurs

23. When an adult

confirms that a

specific sexual

activity is okay

with them, and this

confirmation is

shared by all parties

involved in the

sexual activity. All

involved parties

must actually be

23 is very inclusive

and reflects the

complexity of

consent (that it must

be freely given, can

be revoked at any

time, and that all

parties must be able

to knowingly give

their consent).

Comments 21-24 are not

specific on the means by

which the communication for

consent occurs

able to knowingly

confirm their

approval of

involvement in the

sexual activity.

This confirmation

must be present for

the duration of the

sexual activity. Any

party involved in

the sexual activity

may choose to no

longer participate at

any time during the

sexual activity, at

which time they

would no longer

give their consent

or confirmation to

continue. All

involved parties

must agree to these

terms for the sexual

activity to be

considered

consensual. ***

24. I would

describe consent as

the agreement of

two interested

parties to engage in

agreed upon sexual

activities.

24 and 25 are

exclusionary of

sexual encounters

with more than 2

people.

Comments 21-24 are not

specific on the means by

which the communication for

consent occurs.

25. It's when the

other person clearly

indicates they wish

a sexual act to

happen. This could

be verbal, written

or through body

language (although

24 and 25 are

exclusionary of

sexual encounters

with more than 2

people.

25 is a lacking clarity in their

description.

#25 - I liked the

acknowledgement that body

language is hard to define

because I agree with this.

that's a harder line

to define). *

26. A fluid and

reversible assertion

that all members of

a sexual scene are

present and readily

willing to engage in

the acts being

proposed. **

27. Establishing a

clear agreement

that both partners

would like to have

a sexual encounter.

28. Sexual consent

is a mutual

agreement between

2 or more people to

engage in sexual

activity - without

coercion or

compensation. All

people must be

capable of

consenting and

agreeing. **

Comment 28 on the next

section mention consent

cannot be obtained if

compensation is

involved. That to me is a false

statement. Compensation can

be a condition of consent and

does not invalidate the

consent. It is not coercion if

the person is seeking

compensation as a condition

of consent.

29. [s]exual consent

is both a cognitive

decision and a

behavioural display

(verbal or

nonverbal),

signaling a

willingness (free

from coercion/

incapacitation)

to engage in sexual

activity.***

30. Sexual

Consent is a verbal

or nonverbal

agreement between

two adults to

engage in sexual

acts with one

another. Sexual

consent can be

either clearly

defined or implied

depending on the

setting of the

encounter and

habits of the

individuals. *

31. Sexual consent

is the permission by

another to engage

in a sexual act. The

consent involves

complete choice

from the other

without substance

coercion or force.

*Note. Level of agreement * Endorsement = > 50% participant agreement; ** Consensus =

>70% participant agreement *** Major Consensus = >90% participant agreement

Of the seven descriptions of sexual consent which the Panel reached a level of consensus

of over 90% (descriptions 3, 4, 5,6,15, 23, & 29), three of the six qualities of sexual consent are

shared by multiple descriptions. The quality Sexual consent should be freely/given without

influence is notable in five of these descriptions (3,4,5,6, 29) and is reflected as a positive

element of these descriptions in the qualitative comments. Indeed, as seen in Table 3 one MSM

participant notes:

“I especially agree with the emphasis in 3, 4, 5 about the importance of ongoing

communication and the ability to withdraw consent, as well as the importance of equity and the

role that power dynamics play.”

The quality of Sexual consent should be ongoing is documented in in four of the Major

Consensus descriptions (4,5,15, & 23). Again, in Table 3 qualitative feedback reflects the

positive nature of the Major consensus percentage as one SR notes: “4 and 5 include that consent

is an ongoing process, which I see as a key component in the definition”. Lastly, descriptions 23

and 29 shared the sexual consent quality of “Sexual consent should be permission granting/

affirming” however qualitative feedback for these statements did not endorse that quality as

being relevant to its’ Likert rating.

In Round Two, participants were asked to review the list of six-sexual consent qualities

and provide qualitative feedback speaking to the comprehensiveness of this list as a form of

member check (Appendix AA). Additionally, initial rank order positions of the sexual consent

qualities were collected from participants and are depicted in Table 4. Results from this initial

ranking demonstrate that the group was unable to come to an agreement as no sexual consent

quality in a given rank order position was able to reach the minimum tier. However, several

sexual consent qualities in a given rank order position were close to meeting group agreement. In

particular, “Sexual consent should be mutual” reached 40% in the first rank order position (most

important), with seven MSM endorsing it and the first position and one researcher who identified

as MSM placing it in rank order position one. “Consent should be confirmed via verbal and

nonverbal behaviors reached 30% in the sixth rank order position (sixth most important) and

with two SR, four MSM and one MSM identified researcher placing it in the sixth rank order

position.

Table 4,

Round 2, Sexual Consent Qualities Rank Order Position

Table 4

Rank Order Position

most

important

position

Second

most

important

position

Third most

important

position

Fourth

most

important

position

Fifth most

important

position

Sixth most

important

position

Consent

Quality

Round 2

I. Sexual

consent

should be

mutual

between all

parties.

Panel n =8

(40%)

Panel n = 7

(35%)

Panel n = 4

(20%)

Panel n =

1 (5%)

SR n = 0

SR n = 4

SR n = 1

SR n = 0

MSM n =

8 (1 MSR)

MSM n = 3

(1 MSR)

MSM n =

II. Sexual

consent

should be

freely/given

without

influence.

Panel n =

4 (20%)

Panel n = 7

(35%)

Panel n =5

(25%)

Panel n =

2 (5%)

Panel n = 1

(5%)

Panel n = 2

(10%)

SR n = 2

SR n = 1

SR n = 0

SR n = 1

MSM n =

MSM n = 6

(2 MSR)

MSM n = 4

MSM n =

MSM n = 1

III. Sexual

consent

should be

confirmed

via verbal

and non-

verbal

behaviors.

Panel n = 1

(5%)

Panel n = 5

(25%)

Panel n =

3 (15%)

Panel n = 5

(25%)

Panel n = 6

(30%)

SR n = 0

SR n = 2

SR n = 1

SR n = 0

SR n = 2

MSM n = 1

MSM n = 3

MSM n =

2 (1 MSR)

MSM n = 5

(1 MSR)

IV. Sexual

consent

Panel n =

1 (5%)

Panel n = 1

(5%)

Panel n = 3

(15%)

Panel n =

6 (30%)

Panel n = 4

(20%)

Panel n =5

(25%)

should be

reversible/

revocable.

SR n = 0

SR n = 2

SR n = 1

MSM n =

MSM n = 1

MSM n = 3

(1 MSR)

MSM n =

4 (1 MSR)

MSM n = 2

MSM n = 4

V. Sexual

consent

should be

ongoing.

Panel n =

1 (5%)

Panel n = 2

(10%)

Panel n =

6 (30%)

Panel n = 9

(45%)

Panel n = 2

(10%)

SR n = 0

SR n = 2

SR n = 3

SR n = 0

MSM n =

MSM n = 2

MSM n =

MSM n = 6

(2 MSR)

MSM n = 2

VI. Sexual

consent

should be

permission

granting/

affirming.

Panel n =

6 (30%)

Panel n = 2

(10%)

Panel n = 3

(15%)

Panel n =

3 (15%)

Panel n = 1

(5%)

Panel n =5

(25%)

SR n = 3

SR n = 0

SR n = 1

SR n = 0

SR n = 1

MSM n =

3 (1 MSR)

MSM n = 2

MSM n =

MSM n = 1

MSM n = 4

(1 MSR)

Note. When applicable MSM Sexual Researchers are noted within totals as (# MSR)

Data from the initial Round Two ranking was analyzed and collated before being

provided to participants for Round Three. Participants reviewed their initial rank order positions

of sexual consent qualities against the group aggregate, and then re-ranked the sexual consent

qualities. As can be seen Table 4, there are a diverse set of opinions amongst the group. However

some group agreement was reached with a total of 4 sexual consent qualities reaching an

agreement level of Endorsement by having 50% or more of the participants agreeing on a rank

order position for the specific quality. In particular, “Sexual consent should be mutual” (first

position n = 11, [61%]), “Sexual consent should be confirmed via verbal and non-verbal

behaviors” (third position n = 9, [50%]), “Sexual consent should be ongoing” (fifth position n =

9, [50%]), and “Sexual consent should be permission granting/ affirming” (sixth position n = 10,

[55%] ).

Table 5,

Round 3, Sexual Consent Qualities Rank Order Position

Table 5

Rank Order Position

most

important

position

Second

most

important

position

Third most

important

position

Fourth

most

important

position

Fifth most

important

position

Sixth most

important

position

Consent

Quality

Round 3

I. Sexual

consent

should be

mutual

between all

Panel n

=11 (61%)

Panel n = 5

(27%)

Panel n = 2

(11%)

SR n = 3

SR n = 1

parties.

MSM n =

8 (1 MSR)

MSM n = 3

(1 MSR)

II. Sexual

consent

should be

freely/given

without

influence.

Panel n =

4 (22%)

Panel n =

10 (55%)

Panel n =2

(11%)

Panel n = 2

(11%)

SR n = 2

SR n = 3

SR n = 0

MSM n =

2 (1 MSR)

MSM n = 7

MSM n = 2

III. Sexual

consent

should be

confirmed

via verbal

and non-

verbal

behaviors.

Panel n =

1 (5%)

Panel n = 1

(5%)

Panel n = 9

(50%)

Panel n =

3 (16%)

Panel n = 2

(11%)

Panel n = 2

(11%)

SR n = 0

SR n = 1

SR n = 2

SR n = 0

SR n = 2

(1MSR)

SR n = 1

MSM n =

MSM n = 0

MSM n = 7

MSM n =

MSM n = 0

MSM n = 1

IV. Sexual

consent

should be

reversible/

revocable.

Panel n =

1 (5%)

Panel n = 4

(22%)

Panel n =

7 (38%)

Panel n = 4

(22%)

Panel n =2

(11%)

SR n = 0

SR n = 1

SR n = 3

SR n = 1

SR n = 0

MSM n =

MSM n = 3

(1 MSR)

MSM n =

MSM n = 3

MSM n = 2

V. Sexual

consent

should be

ongoing.

Panel n =

1 (5%)

Panel n = 1

(10%)

Panel n =

3 (16%)

Panel n = 9

(50%)

Panel n = 4

(10%)

SR n = 0

SR n = 2

SR n = 3

SR n = 0

MSM n =

MSM n = 1

MSM n =

MSM n = 6

MSM n = 4

(1 MSR)

VI. Sexual

consent

should be

permission

granting/

affirming.

Panel n = 1

(5%)

Panel n = 1

(5%)

Panel n =

5 (27%)

Panel n = 1

(5%)

Panel n

=10 (55%)

SR n = 0

SR n = 1

SR n = 0

SR n = 4

MSM n = 1

MSM n = 0

MSM n =

5 (1 MSR)

MSM n = 1

MSM n = 6

Note. When applicable MSM Sexual Researchers are noted within totals as (# MSR)

Finally, Table 6 compares the first order position rankings of sexual consent qualities

between Round Two and Round Three. As noted in Table six, more agreement was reached

when considering the first rank order position. “Sexual consent should be mutual” earned a

group endorsement with 61% (n=11) of participants indicating this quality belonged in the first

rank order position. Similarly, Table 7 compares the sixth rank order position of sexual consent

qualities between rounds. The quality of “Sexual consent should be permission granting/

affirming” also earned an endorsement in the sixth rank order position with 55% of participants

indicating its placement there.

Table 6

Sexual Consent Qualities First Rank Order Position Comparison between Round Two Ranking

and Round Three Ranking,

Table 6

Consent Quality

Panel Description

Round 2

First rank

order

position

Round 3

First rank order

position

I. Sexual consent should be

mutual between all parties.

Consensus %

40%

n = 8

61%

n = 11

n = 0

n = 3

MSM

n = 8 (MSR)

n = 8

II. Sexual consent should be

freely/given without influence.

Consensus %

20%

n = 4

22%

n = 4

n = 2

MSM

n = 2

n = 2 (1 MSR)

III. Sexual consent should be

confirmed via verbal and non-

verbal behaviors.

Consensus %

n = 1

MSM

n =1

IV. Sexual consent should be

reversible/ revocable.

Consensus %

(n = 1)

MSM

n = 1

V. Sexual consent should be

ongoing.

Consensus %

(n = 1)

MSM

n = 1

VI. Sexual consent should be

permission granting/ affirming.

Consensus %

30%

(n = 6)

n = 3

MSM

n = 3 (1

MSR)

Note. When applicable MSM Sexual Researchers are noted within totals as (# MSR)

Table 7

Sexual Consent Qualities Sixth Rank Order Position Comparison between Round Two Ranking

and Round Three Ranking,

Table 7

Consent Quality

Round 2

Sixth rank

order

position

Round 3

Sixth rank

order position

I. Sexual consent should be

mutual between all parties.

Consensus %

MSM

II. Sexual consent should be

freely/given without influence.

Consensus %

10% (n = 2)

n = 1

MSM

n = 1

III. Sexual consent should be

Consensus %

30% (n = 6)

11% (n = 2)

Consent Quality

Round 2

Sixth rank

order

position

Round 3

Sixth rank

order position

confirmed via verbal and non-

verbal behaviors.

n = 2

n = 1

MSM

n = 5 (1

MSR)

n = 1

IV. Sexual consent should be

reversible/ revocable.

Consensus %

25% (n = 5)

5% (n = 1)

n = 1

MSM

n = 4

n = 1

V. Sexual consent should be

ongoing.

Consensus %

5% (n = 1)

11% (n = 2)

MSM

n = 1

n = 2

VI. Sexual consent should be

permission granting/ affirming.

Consensus %

25% (n = 5)

55% (n = 10)

n = 1

n = 4

Consent Quality

Round 2

Sixth rank

order

position

Round 3

Sixth rank

order position

MSM

n = 4 (1

MSR)

n = 6

Note. When applicable MSM Sexual Researchers are noted within totals as (# MSR)

Sexual Non-Consent Results

Questions regarding Sexual non-consent where not added into the survey until Round

Two due to a Qualtrics error. In Round Two, participants were asked to respond to the open-

ended prompt of “How would you describe sexual non-consent?” participants provided 20

unique qualitative descriptions of sexual non-consent (See left panel of Table 8). The 20

descriptions of sexual non-consent were analyzed using open and axial coding and formed the

five elements of sexual non-consent shown below:

1. Non-consent involves Coercion and Power Imbalances that prevent consent to be freely

given (by at least one member of the party).

2. Non-consent involves a lack of Mutual Agreement (between all members of the party)

3. Non-consent involves a lack of Will or Desire (for at least one member of the party)

4. Non-consent involves Verbal, Nonverbal, and Body Language behaviors to communicate

it.

5. Non-consent involves the continued violation of permission (of at least one party

member) as conveyed through verbal behaviors (eg. saying no).

Non-Consent element one was derived from the broad category of (1) Coercive/ power

Imbalance. Descriptions coded with Coercive/ Power imbalance were descriptions in which

the participant noted the implications of unequal power dynamics, citing a variety of origins

for that imbalance (e.g., social, perceived, chronological, neurological, etc.). Five responses

were coded with the Coercive/ Power imbalance category, an example of these statements is:

“Non-consent is any sexual action that occurs that is not agreed upon, occurs with a power

differential, one of the members is influenced by a substance, there is force, or finally that

consent is withdrawn but the action continues”.

Broad Category (2) Lack of Mutual Agreement was utilized when a description

emphasized a one-sidedness or lack of agreement as being part of sexual non-consent. This

code was utilized six times during the coding process. An exemplar statement for this code is

“Sexual non-consent is the act of forcing or coercing an individual into sex without his/her

permission”.

Broad category (3) Lack of Will/ Desire was used to code descriptions in which the

participant identified lack of will/ desire as part of sexual non-consent. This code was applied

ten times and is represented be the following statement: “Choosing to not want to participate

in sexual activity. This can occur independently of a provocation or can happen by declining

a suggestion or proposition. Non-consent means no.”

The next Broad category (4) Nonverbals / Body language was derived from participants

response which noted the use of nonverbals or “body language” to effectively convey a lack

of consent to a partner. This code is best represented by the following description:

“Either actively dissenting (verbally by saying "No" or otherwise indicating distaste,

disinterest; nonverbally by physically resisting or moving away from person seeking consent)

AND passively resisting (maybe verbally saying things like, "Maybe" or "I'm just really

tired"; nonverbally lying motionless or not moving). Basically, any verbal language that is

not "Yes" but "Maybe" or "No" is a no to me, and any body language that is ambiguous or

disinterested is non-consent, in my book.”

This code was used a total of ten times during the analysis.

The final Broad category (5) Violation of Permission was derived from descriptions use

of terminology in which boundaries are communicated (via verbal or nonverbal behaviors) and

permission has been denied to proceed further in activity by one party member. This code was

utilized a total of 8 times during the analysis. Violation of Permission is best exemplified by this

statement: “Any sexual experience that leaves any partner questioning their own enthusiastic and

willing participation or feeling that boundaries and limits were ignored through verbal, non-

verbal, or socially coercive actions or words.”

In Round Three, the 20 original descriptions of sexual non-consent (collected in Round

Two) were reviewed by participants and rated on a five-point Likert scale with 1 being “This

does not adequately describe sexual non-consent” and 5 “This very much describes sexual non-

consent”. Table 6 includes descriptions of sexual non-consent provided by respondents as well

as their overall rating on the five-point Likert scale. Of the 20 descriptions of sexual non-consent

rated in round two, 19 descriptions (95%) met a tier of group agreement. One description,

(description 10) met consensus negatively receiving 60% of participants endorsing this as not

adequately describing non consent. Reviewing the remaining 18 descriptions, one response

(description 7) met Major Consensus with 94% of respondents indicating a four or five on the

Likert scale; nine descriptions established consensus with at least 70% or participants endorsing

a 4 or 5 on the Likert scale; and 8 descriptions of sexual non-consent, marked a group

Endorsement with a minimum of 50% of participants indicating a four or five on the Likert scale.

Table 8 also shows means and standard deviations for the entire panel of participants, as well as

participants broken down into stakeholder status.

Table 8

Round 3, Task 1, Level of Agreement to Descriptions of Sexual non -consent 1(Strongly

Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree) with Mean, Standard Deviation, and Variance

Description

Consensus %

1. Any sexual experience that leaves any partner

questioning their own enthusiastic and willing

participation or feeling that boundaries and

limits were ignored through verbal, non-verbal,

or socially coercive actions or words. **

Panel

4.22

.87

83% (n = 15)

4.2

.40

100% (n = 5)

MSM

4.33

.98

83% (n = 10)

MSR

3.0

2. Non-consent is the way that two or more people

say no leading up to and during a sexual

encounter.

Panel

3.5

1.1

44% (n = 8)

3.2

.97

20% (n = 1)

MSM

3.5

1.1

50% (n = 6)

MSR

5.0

100% (n = 1)

3. Verbal expression of non-consent, body

language such as moving away from the other

person(s), physical deflection of a sexual

contact, or non verbal queue such as shaking of

the head from side to side. **

Panel

4.1

1.1

82% (n = 14)

3.6

.48

60% (n = 3)

MSM

4.1

.93

83% (n = 10)

MSR

5.0

0.0

100% (n = 1)

4. Reluctance or resistance to a suggestion of

sexual activity. It can be verbally, physically or

in body language. **

Panel

4.1

1.1

72% (n = 13)

3.8

.97

60% (n = 3)

MSM

4.1

1.1

75% (n = 9)

MSR

5.0

0.0

100% (n = 1)

5. Rape*

Panel

1.4

66% (n=12)

3.4

1.4

40 % (n = 2)

MSM

4.1

1.3

75% (n = 9)

MSR

5.0

0.0

100% (n = 1)

6. denial of permission, verbally or non-verbally

Panel

3.9

1.2

72% (n=13)

3.6

1.2

40% (n=2)

MSM

4.0

1.3

83% (n = 10)

MSR

5.0

0.0

100% (n = 1)

7. Not giving consent would include when not all

parties agree to the sexual activity. This non-

consent can take the form of verbal and non-

verbal cues (e.g., saying "No," pushing

someone away), reversing a decision for

consent that may have been given earlier, when

an involved party is not an adult, or an adult in

a power dynamic not capable of consent in the

first place (e.g. child, prisoner, mental health

considerations). ***

Panel

4.7

.57

94% (n=17)

4.6

.48

100% (n = 5)

MSM

4.7

.621

91% (n = 11)

MSR

5.0

0.0

100% (n = 1)

8. Verbal or non-verbal indications that they are

unwilling or not wanting to participate in sexual

activities. Any Coercive or being under the

influence of drugs or alcohol automatically

makes it non-consensual. **

Panel

3.8

.96

72% (n = 13)

3.6

.48

60% (n = 3)

MSM

4.0

1.12

75% (n = 9)

MSR

4.0

0.0

100% (n = 1)

9. I would describe sexual non-consent as taking

actions to indicate that you do not want to have

sex in this moment. Preferably it involves

words indicating your unwillingness to engage

in sex, but it can also involve non-verbal

behaviors such as increasing physical

distance.*

Panel

4.0

1.1

66% (n = 12)

3.4

.48

60 % (n = 3)

MSM

4.1

.93

66% (n = 8)

MSR

5.0

0.0

100% (n = 1)

10. If the other party utterly do not agree

Panel

2.8

1.3

27% (n=5)

1.8

1.1

20% (n = 1)

MSM

3.0

1.1

25% (n =3)

MSR

5.0

0.0

100% (n = 1)

11. Non-consent is any sexual action that occurs

that is not agreed upon, occurs with a power

differential, one of the members is influenced

by a substance, there is force, or finally that

consent is withdrawn but the action continues.

Panel

4.2

1.2

77% (n = 14)

1.0

80% (n = 4)

MSM

4.3

1.2

75% (n = 9)

MSR

5.0

0.0

100% (n = 1)

12. Either actively dissenting (verbally by saying

"No" or otherwise indicating distaste,

disinterest; nonverbally by physically resisting

or moving away from person seeking consent)

AND passively resisting (maybe verbally

saying things like, "Maybe" or "I'm just really

tired"; nonverbally lying motionless or not

moving). Basically, any verbal language that is

not "Yes" but "Maybe" or "No" is a no to me,

and any body language that is ambiguous or

disinterested is non-consent, in my book. **

Panel

4.2

.78

77% (n=14)

4.2

.74

80% (n = 4)

MSM

4.1

.79

75% (n = 9)

MSR

5.0

0.0

100% (n = 1)

13. Sexual non-consent is the act of forcing or

coercing an individual into sex without his/her

permission.*

Panel

3.5

1.3

55% (n=10)

3.4

40% (n = 2)

MSM

3.6

1.4

58% (n = 7)

MSR

5.0

0.0

100% (n = 1)

14. Sexual non consent is an unwillingness to

participate in a sexual act with one or more

other people. This can be affirmed actively or

through avoidance. Sexual non consent should

be the default assumption until confirmed.*

Panel

3.6

1.0

55% (n = 10)

3.4

.80

40% (n = 2)

MSM

3.6

1.1

58% (n = 7)

MSR

5.0

0.0

100% (n = 1)

15. Not wishing to engage in certain sexual

activities with a certain partner or partners, or at

that specific time. This can also include

moments where an individual is unable to

provide consent, such as when someone is

drinking alcohol or is unconscious.*

Panel

3.8

1.3

61% (n=11)

1.1

60% (n = 3)

MSM

3.8

1.4

58% (n = 7)

MSR

5.0

0.0

100% (n = 1)

16. Non-consent constitutes the absence of

agreement. In other words, a lack of

disagreement or refusal is not sufficient for

consent. Sexual non-consent is sexual activity

that is not mutual, communicated

(verbal/nonverbal), or ongoing.**

Panel

4.3

1.3

83% (n=15)

4.6

80% (n = 4)

MSM

4.1

1.1

83% (n = 10)

MSR

5.0

0.0

100% (n = 1)

17. Saying no. Or some concept of that. Actions

too, but honestly, I think no is very clear.*

Panel

3.3

1.4

55% (n=10)

2.2

1.5

40% (n = 2)

MSM

3.5

1.1

58% (n = 7)

MSR

5.0

0.0

100% (n = 1)

18. Choosing to not want to participate in sexual

activity. This can occur independently of a

provocation, or can happen by declining a

suggestion or proposition. Non-consent means

no.*

Panel

3.6

1.2

61% (n=11)

2.8

1.2

40% (n = 2)

MSM

3.8

1.1

66% (n = 8)

MSR

5.0

0.0

100% (n = 1)

19. Non-consent is either verbal or nonverbal

communication that states someone in the party

does not want to participate. When someone is

non-consenting the act should be stopped

immediately and not face any harm or backlash.

Panel

4.0

1.2

77% (n = 14)

3.6

1.35

80% (n = 4)

MSM

4.1

1.2

83% (n = 10)

MSR

5.0

0.0

100% (n = 1)

20. The forcing of a sexual activity or encounter on

someone who has not given clear consent or the

continuation of sexual acts on someone who

has rescinded their consent.*

Panel

3.8

.92

66% (n=13)

3.2

.97

40% (n = 2)

MSM

4.0

.74

83% (n = 10)

MSR

5.0

0.0

100% (n = 1)

*Note. Level of agreement * Endorsement = > 50% participant agreement ; ** Consensus =

>70% participant agreement *** Major Consensus = >90% participant agreement

Additionally, during Round Three, qualitative feedback was also collected from participants

regarding their reactions to peers’ descriptions of sexual non-consent collected in Round Two.

Table 9 contains the qualitative comments made by participants in response to peers’

descriptions of sexual non-consent. Comments were sorted by description reference number and

according to stakeholder status (SR and MSM). Table 9 notes differences between these groups,

and particularly highlights differing views on substance use and its impact on the ability to give

sexual consent (comments responding to 8 and 11). Additionally, overarching themes through

these comments highlight the role of coercion and power in sexual non-consent (comments 16-

20).

Table 9,

Round 3, Task 1 Qualitative Feedback to participants descriptions

Table 8

How would you describe

sexual non-consent?

Sexual Researcher

MSM / MSR

1. Any sexual

experience that

leaves any partner

questioning their

own enthusiastic

and willing

participation or

feeling that

boundaries and

limits were ignored

through verbal,

non-verbal, or

socially coercive

actions or words.

2. Non-consent is the

way that two or

more people say no

leading up to and

during a sexual

encounter.

3. Verbal expression

of non-consent,

body language

such as moving

away from the

other person(s),

physical deflection

of a sexual contact,

or non verbal

queue such as

shaking of the head

from side to side.

4. Reluctance or

resistance to a

suggestion of

sexual activity. It

can be verbally,

physically or in

body language. **

5. Rape*

6. denial of

permission,

verbally or non-

verbally **

Again, 6-10 show nuanced parts of

non-consent. There are many

examples, and I think all these are

valid.

7. Not giving consent

would include

when not all parties

agree to the sexual

activity. This non-

consent can take

the form of verbal

and non-verbal

cues (e.g., saying

"No," pushing

someone away),

reversing a

decision for

consent that may

have been given

earlier, when an

involved party is

not an adult, or an

Again, 6-10 show nuanced parts of

non-consent. There are many

examples, and I think all these are

valid.

No 7 and 8 are great examples because

they also include mental state (clouded

by drugs or alcohol) and power

dynamics as forcing non consent. Non

consent is more than just no

adult in a power

dynamic not

capable of consent

in the first place

(e.g. child,

prisoner, mental

health

considerations).***

8. Verbal or non-

verbal indications

that they are

unwilling or not

wanting to

participate in

sexual activities.

Any Coercive or

being under the

influence of drugs

or alcohol

automatically

makes it non-

consensual.**

Comment 8: I do not agree that if a

person is under the influence of alcohol

it is automatically not consent. I have

had sex many times while under the

influence of alcohol and I had the

capacity to provide my consent. There

are degrees of influence or impairment

and that is what must be considered.

Again, 6-10 show nuanced parts of

non-consent. There are many

examples, and I think all these are

valid.

No 7 and 8 are great examples because

they also include mental state (clouded

by drugs or alcohol) and power

dynamics as forcing non consent. Non

consent is more than just no

9. I would describe

sexual non-consent

as taking actions to

indicate that you

do not want to

have sex in this

moment.

Preferably it

involves words

indicating your

unwillingness to

engage in sex, but

it can also involve

non-verbal

Again, 6-10 show nuanced parts of

non-consent. There are many

examples, and I think all these are

valid.

behaviors such as

increasing physical

distance.*

10. If the other party

utterly do not agree

Comment 10: This comment provides

no description of how any party is not

agreeing and is inadequate.

No 10 is too vague. How do you know

if someone else doesn't agree?

10 seems to be lacking description and

clearness in language.

Again, 6-10 show nuanced parts of

non-consent. There are many

examples, and I think all these are

valid.

11. Non-consent is any

sexual action that

occurs that is not

agreed upon,

occurs with a

power differential,

one of the

members is

influenced by a

substance, there is

force, or finally

that consent is

withdrawn but the

action continues.**

11 and 13 both seem

to be more about the

non consensual act

perpetrated, not non-

consent given (or not

given) by the other

party

Comments 11 and 15: The fact that a

person has consumed alcohol does not

automatically mean they are unable to

provide consent. Again the degree to

which alcohol is impacting the

individual's ability to make a decision

must be considered.

No 11 is a particularly good non

consent definition. It includes all

dynamics I can think of (coercion,

mental state, force, unwillingness).

This is probably the best definition I

can find.

12. Either actively

dissenting

(verbally by saying

"No" or otherwise

indicating distaste,

disinterest;

nonverbally by

physically resisting

or moving away

from person

seeking consent)

AND passively

resisting (maybe

verbally saying

things like,

"Maybe" or "I'm

just really tired";

nonverbally lying

motionless or not

moving). Basically,

any verbal

language that is not

"Yes" but "Maybe"

or "No" is a no to

me, and any body

language that is

ambiguous or

disinterested is

non-consent, in my

book.**

13. Sexual non-consent

is the act of forcing

or coercing an

individual into sex

without his/her

permission.*

11 and 13 both seem

to be more about the

non consensual act

perpetrated, not non-

consent given (or not

given) by the other

party

Comment 13 describes one forcing a

sexual act, not the act of a the person

giving non-consent.

No 13 is too vague and doesn't capture

the range of different non consent

conditions.

14. Sexual non consent

is an unwillingness

to participate in a

sexual act with one

or more other

people. This can be

affirmed actively

or through

avoidance. Sexual

non consent should

be the default

assumption until

confirmed.*

Comment 14: Does not describe any

ways specific ways that non-consent is

conveyed.

#14 gets to an important approach, that

non-consent should be the default until

consent is confirmed. I hadn't thought

of that before in that way, it makes

sense.

15. Not wishing to

engage in certain

sexual activities

with a certain

partner or partners,

or at that specific

time. This can also

include moments

where an

individual is

unable to provide

consent, such as

when someone is

drinking alcohol or

is unconscious.*

Comments 11 and 15: The fact that a

person has consumed alcohol does not

automatically mean they are unable to

provide consent. Again the degree to

which alcohol is impacting the

individual's ability to make a decision

must be considered.

16. Non-consent

constitutes the

absence of

agreement. In other

words, a lack of

disagreement or

refusal is not

sufficient for

consent. Sexual

non-consent is

sexual activity that

is not mutual,

No 16 through 20 are all pretty good,

but still focus only on not declining

and not the other attributes of consent

(metnal state, coercion, ability to

consent).

communicated

(verbal/nonverbal),

or ongoing.**

17. Saying no. Or

some concept of

that. Actions too,

but honestly, I

think no is very

clear.*

No 16 through 20 are all pretty good,

but still focus only on not declining

and not the other attributes of consent

(metnal state, coercion, ability to

consent).

18. Choosing to not

want to participate

in sexual activity.

This can occur

independently of a

provocation, or can

happen by

declining a

suggestion or

proposition. Non-

consent means no.*

No 16 through 20 are all pretty good,

but still focus only on not declining

and not the other attributes of consent

(metnal state, coercion, ability to

consent).

19. Non-consent is

either verbal or

nonverbal

communication

that states someone

in the party does

not want to

participate. When

someone is non-

consenting the act

should be stopped

immediately and

not face any harm

or backlash.**

No 16 through 20 are all pretty good,

but still focus only on not declining

and not the other attributes of consent

(metnal state, coercion, ability to

consent).

#19 is mine! I remember. haha I think I

might have forgot last time. I really

liked the "no is very clear" because I

agree, it should be very clear. But I

think our culture doesn't allow for that.

There is always an unbalance of power

and people will exploit it if they know

they can get away with it. It's terrible.

20. The forcing of a

sexual activity or

encounter on

someone who has

not given clear

consent or the

continuation of

sexual acts on

someone who has

rescinded their

consent.*

same criticism for

#20 as for 11 and 13

- more about the

more active party

than the person not

consenting

No 16 through 20 are all pretty good,

but still focus only on not declining

and not the other attributes of consent

(metnal state, coercion, ability to

consent).

Referencing 16-20

Still a lil [sic] mind

boggled coming up

with a strong

definition of the

absence of

something.

*Note. Level of agreement * Endorsement = > 50% participant agreement ; ** Consensus =

>70% participant agreement *** Major Consensus = >90% participant agreement

After reviewing peers' descriptions of sexual non-consent, participants were given the five

elements of sexual non-consent derived from the group’s descriptions of sexual non-consent and

asked to provide feedback. Furthermore, participants were asked to rank order the elements with

rank order position one being “most impactful” on a 1-5 scale. Data collected from this ranking

is depicted below in Table 10. Only one element of non-consent “Non-consent involves a lack of

Will or Desire (for at least one member of the party)” reached a level of agreement by

participants, an endorsement (50%, n=9), and this was placed in the fifth rank order position.

Two other responses neared a group agreement of an endorsement, “Non-consent involves a lack

of Mutual Agreement (between all members of the party)” in the first rank order position (44%,

n=8) and “Non-consent involves Coercion and Power Imbalances that prevent consent to be

freely given (by at least one member of the party)” in the third rank order position (44% n=8).

Table 10

Elements of Sexual Non-Consent Rank Order Position Round 3

Table 9

Rank Order Position

most

impactful

position

Second

most

impactful

position

Third most

impactful

position

Fourth

most

impactful

position

Fifth most

impactful

position

Non-

Consent

Element

Round 3

I. Non-

consent

involves

Coercion

and Power

Imbalances

that prevent

consent to

be freely

given (by at

least one

member of

Panel n =

2 (11%)

Panel n = 3

(16%)

Panel n = 8

(44%)

Panel n =

3 (16%)

Panel n = 2

(11%)

SR n = 1

SR n = 0

SR n = 2

SR n = 0

MSM n =

MSM n = 3

MSM n = 6

MSM n =

1 (1 MSR)

MSM n = 2

the party).

II. Non-

consent

involves a

lack of

Mutual

Agreement

(between all

members of

the party)

Panel n =

8 (44%)

Panel n = 2

(11%)

Panel n =2

(11%)

Panel n =

5 (27%)

Panel n = 1

(6%)

SR n = 3

SR n = 0

SR n = 2

SR n = 0

MSM n =

MSM n = 2

MSM n = 0

MSM n =

5 (1 MSR)

MSM n = 1

III. Non-

consent

involves a

lack of Will

or Desire

(for at least

one member

of the

party).

Panel n =

1 (6%)

Panel n = 4

(22%)

Panel n = 2

(11%)

Panel n =

2 (11%)

Panel n = 9

(50%)

SR n = 0

SR n = 2

SR n = 0

SR n = 1

SR n = 2

MSM n =

MSM n = 2

MSM n =

MSM n = 6

IV. Non-

consent

involves

Verbal,

Nonverbal,

and Body

Language

behaviors to

communicat

e it.

Panel n =

4 (22%)

Panel n = 6

(33%)

Panel n = 4

(22%)

Panel n =

3 (16%)

Panel n = 1

62%)

SR n = 1

SR n = 2

SR n = 1

SR n = 0

SR n = 1

MSM n =

MSM n = 3

(1 MSR)

MSM n = 3

MSM n =

MSM n = 0

V. Non-

consent

involves the

continued

violation of

permission

(of at least

one party

member) as

conveyed

through

verbal

behaviors

(eg. saying

no).

Panel n =

3 (16 %)

Panel n = 4

(16%)

Panel n = 2

(11%)

Panel n =

5 (27%)

Panel n = 5

(27%)

SR n = 0

SR n = 1

SR n = 0

SR n = 2

MSM n =

3 (1 MSR)

MSM n = 3

MSM n = 2

MSM n =

MSM n = 3

Note. When applicable MSM Sexual Researchers are noted within totals as (# MSR)

Nonverbal Sexual Consent Communication Behaviors Results

Across Rounds One and Three, data was collected from participants regarding nonverbal

sexual consent communication behaviors. In Round One, participants reviewed Beres et al.’s

(2007) list of nonverbal sexual consent communication behaviors and provided qualitative

feedback regarding the list (Table 11). Broad themes amongst the feedback regarding nonverbal

consent communication behaviors included the need for “nodding and smiling” and more

attention to “cruising” behaviors. In addition, as highlighted by one sexual researcher’s comment

“… [You] Need to keep in mind actions that (a) are used to initiate sex that are signaling one’s

own consent and (b) cues that are used in response to someone else’s actions that signal one’s

own consent”. Utilizing the feedback collected in Round One, an expanded list of nonverbal

sexual consent communication behaviors was created and presented to participants in Round

Three.

Table 11

Round One, Qualitative descriptions of missing nonverbal sexual consent communication

behaviors.

Table 10

Question 61

SR (n= 13)

MSM (n=22)

“When describing the idea of

sexual consent, researchers

have established two means of

communicating consent

through verbal and nonverbal

behaviors. Some of these

nonverbal behaviors have been

noted below (Beres, Herold,

Maitland, 2004).

What nonverbal behaviors, if

any, are missing from the

above list?

None (n=10, 76%)

None (n=9, 40%)

I wanna say like

grinding on them but

maybe that’s what they

mean by “physically

close to your partner,”

haha. Maybe moving

towards bedroom?

Heavy breathing, motions or

gestures that indicate a

request to engage in sexual

activity or mimic sexual

activity

Nodding. Smiling.

Hold partner's hands during

sexual act

There are a couple of

items here noting

“kissing” in return (i.e.,

as a response) but not as

an initial action. Need to

keep in mind actions

that (a) are used to

initiate sex that are

signaling one’s own

consent and (b) cues that

are used in response to

someone else’s actions

that signal one’s own

consent

Head nod in agreement or as

to motion to come

closer/approach. Pass a

prospective partner several

times with eye contact,

"cruising". Gesturing with

hand(s) to approach. Sit or

stand next to deliberately

[sic] leading to touching,

kissing, fondling, etc.

Leaving a shower

curtain/door open at home or

in public place such as gym.

Flashing head lights of a car.

Standing at a urinal for an

unusually long time. Many

of these and those listed in

the question are used in

combination to convey

consent.

Partner nods head. You

exchange a "look" that you

know means "yes" to sexual

activity

nod, wink, come hither

motion

Urging on, being

enthusiastic about it

Undressing yourself in front

of your partner, showing off

attractive underwear to your

partner, putting your partners

hands on you

play footsie with your

partner

Raising Eyebrows and eye

contact with the penis.

I would say eye contact and

maybe a head nod yes or no.

I always think verbal is

much more important than

the nonverbals.

Nodding head affirmatively.

Smiling. Making noises, like

moaning.

Sending suggestive or

sexually explicit pictures /

video; Checking out partner

by looking at their body

I want us together

Note. When applicable MSM Sexual Researchers are noted within totals as (# MSR)

In Round Three, participants sorted the expanded list of 29 nonverbal sexual consent

behaviors into categories of usage (i.e., identified a behavior as a Consent Giving Behavior, a

Consent Seeking Behavior, an Interchangeable Behavior, Ambiguous Behavior, a Refusal

Behavior or an Unused Behavior). Table12, depicts the results from this sorting task with 24

nonverbal behaviors (82%) reaching a level of group agreement on its usage. Out of the 24

nonverbal sexual consent communication behaviors which reached a level of group agreement,

only “The behavior of distancing onself physically from a partner” reached the level of Major

Consensus with 95% of the panel labeling this behavior as a consent refusal behavior. Five

behaviors (20%) reached the level of Consensus with more than 70% of the panel agreeing on

the nonverbal communication behavior’s usage (Table 13). The remaining 18 behaviors reached

the level of group endorsement with more than 50% of the panel agreeing on the nonverbal

sexual consent communication behavior’s usage (Table 14). Additionally, a chi square analysis

of independence was run to analyze group differences between SR and MSM (including MSR).

One Behavior, “The behavior of saying nothing and proceeding to have sex with a partner”

reported a value of X

(3, N= 18) = 6.70, p .08 nearing significance but not meeting threshold for

independence. When examining three distinct groups, SR, MSM, and MSR independently, four

behaviors (11, 15, 21, 23 bolded in Table 12) were found to have p values <.05 suggesting these

groups may act differently than differences between groups. Implications of these findings are

discussed in the next section (crosstabs located in Appendix A).

Table 12,

Round Three, Nonverbal Sexual Consent Communication Behavior Usage

Table 11

Sorted Category

Nonverbal

Behavior

Consent

Giving

Consent

Seeking

Interchang

eable

Behavior

Ambiguou

s Behavior

Consent

Refusal

Decline

d to sort

1. The

behavior

of hugging

and

caressing a

partner.

(NV) *

Panel

N = 1

(5%)

N = 2

(11%)

N = 10

(55%)*

N = 4

(22%)

N = 1

(5%)

N = 5

(100%)

MSM

N = 1

(8%)

N = 2

(16%)

N = 5

(41%)

N = 4

(33%)

N = 1

(8%)

MSR)

2. The

behavior

of getting

physically

closer to a

partner.

(NV) *

Panel

N = 1

(5%)

N = 5

(27%)

N = 9

(50%)*

N = 3

(16%)

N = 1

(20%)

N = 3

(60%)

N = 1

(20%)

MSM

N = 1

(8%)

N = 4

(33%)

(1 MSR)

N = 6

(46%)

N = 2

(16%)

3. The

behavior

distancing

onself

physically

from a

partner

(NV) ***

Panel

N = 1

(5%)

N = 17

(95%)*

N = 5

(100%)

MSM

N = 1

(8%)

N = 12

(91%)

(1MSR)

4. The

behavior

touching

and kissing

a partner in

return.

Panel

N = 14

(77%)**

N= 4

(22%)

N = 5

(100%)

MSM

N = 9

(66%)

N=4

(33%)

(NV)**

(1MSR)

5. The

behavior

of one

beginning

to touch

and kiss a

partner

(NV) **

Panel

N = 14

(77%)**

N = 3

(16%)

N = 1

(5%)

N = 3

(60%)

N = 2

(40%)

MSM

N = 11

(83%)

(1 MSR)

N = 1

(8%)

N = 1

(8%)

6. The

behavior

of smiling

at a

partner.

(NV) *

Panel

N = 1

(5%)

N = 6

(33%)

N = 9

(50%)*

0.00

N = 2

(11%)

N = 2

(40%)

N = 3

(60%)

MSM

N = 1

(8%)

N=4

(33%)

N = 6

(50%)

N = 2

(8%)

MSR)

7. The

behavior

of not

smiling at

a partner

(NV)*

Panel

N = 1

(5%)

N= 12

(66%)*

N= 5

(27%)

N = 5

(100%)

MSM

N = 1

(8%)

N = 7

(58%)

N=5

(33%)

MSR)

8. The

behavior

of rubbing,

fondling,

and

touching a

partner

sexually.

(NV)

Panel

N = 1

(5%)

N = 6

(33%)

N = 8

(44%)

N = 1

(5%)

N = 2

(11%)

N =1

(20%)

N = 3

(60%)

N =1

(20%)

MSM

N = 1

(8%)

N = 5

(41%)

N = 5

(41%)

N = 12

(8%) (1

MSR)

9. The

Panel

N = 3

N = 2

N= 10

N = 2

N = 1

behavior

of not

resisting a

partner’s

sexual

advances.

(NV)*

(16%)

(11%)

(55%)*

(11%)

(5%)

N =1

(20%)

N = 4

(80%)

MSM

N = 2

(16%)

N = 2

(16%)

N = 6

(41%) ( 1

MSR)

N = 2

(16%)

N = 1

(8%)

10. The

behavior of

not stopping

a partner

from kissing

or touching

one sexually.

(NV)*

Panel

N = 6

(33%)

N = 1

(5%)

N= 9

(50%)*

N = 1

(5%)

N = 1

(5%)

N =1

(20%)

N = 4

(80%)

MSM

N = 5

(41%)

N = 1

(8%)

N=5

(33%) (1

MSR)

N = 1

(8%)

N = 1

(8%)

11.The

behavior of

letting a

partner take

one’s clothes

off. (NV)*

Panel

N=9

(50%)*

N = 1

(5%)

N = 3

(16%)

N= 4

(22%)

N = 1

(5%)

N = 2

(40%)

N =1

(20%)

N = 2

(40%)

MSM

N = 7

(58%)

N = 1

(8%)

N = 2

(16%)

N = 2

(16%)

N= 1 (1

MSR)

12.The

behavior of

not saying

“no” to a

partner. (NV)

Panel

N = 3

(16%)

N = 1

(5%)

N=8

(38%)

N=5

(27%)

N = 1

(5%)

N = 2

(40%)

N = 3

(60%)

MSM

N = 3

(24%)

N = 1

(8%)

N = 6

(41%) (1

MSR)

N = 2

(16%)

N = 1

(8%)

13.The

behavior of

undressing a

partner.

(NV)*

Panel

N=9

(50%)*

N= 4

(22%)

N = 3

(16%)

N = 2

(11%)

N = 3

(60%)

N =1

(20%)

N =1

(20%)

MSM

N = 6

(50%)

N = 3

(24%)

N = 2

(16%)

N = 2

(8%) 1

(MSR)

14. The

behavior of

undressing

onself (NV) *

Panel

N = 3

(16%)

N = 3

(16%)

N = 11

(61%)*

N = 1

(5%)

N =1

(20%)

N = 4

(80%)

MSM

N = 2

(16%)

N = 3

(24%)

N = 7

(50%)

N = 1

(8%)

15. The

behavior of

helping a

partner

undress

oneself. (NV)

Panel

N=5

(27%)

N= 4

(22%)

N = 7

(38%)

N = 1

(5%)

N = 1

(5%)

N = 3

(60%)

N = 2

(40%)

MSM

N = 2

(16%)

N=4

(33%)

N = 5

(41%)

N = 1

(8%)

N = 1 ()

MSR)

16. The

behavior of

helping

undress a

partner. (NV)

Panel

N= 4

(22%)

N = 6

(33%)

N = 7

(38%)

N = 1

(5%)

N = 2

(40%)

N =1

(20%)

N = 2

(40%)

MSM

N = 2

(16%)

N=5

(33%) (

1 MSR)

N = 5

(41%)

N = 1

(8%)

17. The

behavior of

following a

partner when

invited.

(NV)*

Panel

N=12

(66%)*

N = 2

(11%)

N = 4

(22%)

N = 4

(80%)

N =1

(20%)

MSM

N = 8

(58%) (

1 MSR)

N = 2

(16%)

N = 3

(24%)

18. The

behavior of

signaling or

motioning for

a partner to

follow (NV)

Panel

N = 2

(11%)

N=9

(50%)*

N = 2

(11%)

N = 5

(27%)

N =1

(20%)

N = 2

(40%)

N =1

(20%)

N =1

(20%)

MSM

N = 1

(8%)

N = 7

(50%) (1

MSR)

N = 1

(8%)

N=4

(33%)

19. The

behavior of

putting one’s

hands down a

partner’s

pants. (NV) *

Panel

0.00

N = 10

(55%)*

N = 5

(27%)

N = 2

(11%)

N = 1

(5%)

N =1

(20%)

N = 3

(60%)

N =1

(20%)

MSM

N = 9

(66%)

(1 MSR)

N = 2

(16%)

N = 1

(8%)

N = 1

(8%)

20. The

behavior of

saying

nothing and

proceeding to

have sex with

a partner.

(NV) *

Panel

N = 4

(22%)

N = 3

(16%)

N =11

(61%)*

N = 2

(40%)

N = 3

(60%)

MSM

N = 4

(33%)

N = 1

(8%)

N = 8

(58%) (1

MSR)

21. The

behavior of

touching

oneself. (NV)

Panel

N= 4

(22%)

N = 10

(55%)*

N = 2

(11%)

N = 2

(11%)

N = 5

(100%)

MSM

N = 4

(33%)

N = 5

(41%)

N = 2

(16%)

N = 2

(8%) (

1 MSR)

22. The

behavior of

making eye

contact with

a partner.

(NV) *

Panel

N = 1

(5%)

N = 7

(38%)

N = 9

(50%)*

N = 1

(5%)

N = 2

(40%)

N = 3

(60%)

MSM

N = 1

(8%)

N = 5

(41%)

N = 6

(41%) ( 1

MSR)

N = 1

(8%)

23. The

behavior of

avoiding eye

contact with

a partner

Panel

N = 1

(5%)

N = 2

(11%)

N = 14

(77%)*

N = 1

(5%)

N =1

(20%)

N = 4

(80%)

(NV)**

MSM

N = 1

(8%)

N = 1

(8%)

N = 10

(83%)

N = 1 (

1 MSR)

24. The

behavior of

turning away

from a

partner (NV)

Panel

N = 3

(16%)

N = 15

(83%)*

N = 5

(100%)

MSM

N = 3

(25%)

N= 10

(75%)

( 1

MSR)

25. The

behavior of

one raising

their

eyebrows

while looking

at a partner

(NV)*

Panel

N = 6

(33%)

N = 2

(11%)

N = 9

(50%)*

N = 1

(5%)

N =1

(20%)

N = 4

(80%)

MSM

N = 5

(33%) (

1 MSR)

N = 2

(16%)

N = 5

(41%)

N = 1

(8%)

26. The

behavior

breathing

heavily (NV)

Panel

N = 1

(5%)

N = 2

(11%)

N = 14

(77%)**

N = 1

(5%)

N =1

(20%)

N = 4

(80%)

MSM

N = 2

(16%)

N= 10

(75%) ( 1

MSR)

N = 1

(8%)

27. The

behavior of

leaning into/

rubbing

against a

partner

(NV)*

Panel

N = 6

(33%)

N = 11

(61%) *

N = 1

(5%)

N =1

(20%)

N = 3

(60%)

N =1

(20%)

MSM

N = 5

(41%)

N = 8

(58%) (1

MSR)

28. The

Panel

N = 6

N = 8

N = 3

N = 1

behavior of

sharing

provocative

content with

a partner

(NV)

(33%)

(44%)

(16%)

(5%)

N = 2

(40%)

N = 3

(60%)

MSM

N = 4

(25%) (

1 MSR)

N = 5

(41%)

N = 3

(25%)

N = 1

(8%)

29. The

behavior of

showing a

partner one is

wearing

provocative

clothes or

accessories

(underwear,

harness, etc.)

Panel

N = 11

(61%)*

N = 5

(27%)

N = 2

(11%)

N = 3

(60%)

N = 2

(40%)

MSM

N = 8

(58%) (

1 MSR)

N = 3

(25%)

N = 2

(16%)

*Note. Level of agreement * Endorsement = > 50% participant agreement ; ** Consensus =

>70% participant agreement *** Major Consensus = >90% participant agreement. When

applicable MSM Sexual Researchers are noted within totals as (# MSR)

DISCUSSION

The current study examined the concepts of sexual consent, sexual non-consent and

nonverbal sexual consent communication behaviors amongst a panel of experts. This study

utilized the Delphi Method (Dalkey, 1969), which is a multi-round mixed method approach to

research that provides structure for consumer/expert consensus (Jorm, 2015). In the context of

the current study, consumers were MSM community members and experts were researchers of

human sexuality, sexual violence, and sexual violence prevention (with approximately two

participants identifying as both). The current study is novel in sexual consent and sexual consent

communication behavior research due to its focus on the inclusion of MSM community members

which are historically underrepresented in studies of sexual consent and sexual consent

communication (Muehlenhard, Humphreys, Jozkowski & Peterson, 2016). This study sought to

explore the concepts of sexual consent, sexual non-consent, and nonverbal sexual consent

communication behaviors, as conceptualized by these groups.

Sexual Consent

The qualities of sexual consent were explored through all three rounds of this Delphi

Study. Participants provided and reviewed 31 descriptions of sexual consent and largely found

commonality around personal opinions regarding sexual consent. Utilizing a Likert scale,

participants were able to give numerical feedback regarding the adequacy of a peer’s description

of sexual consent. The results from the current study highlight that within this current group (The

Panel) and the individual stakeholders making up the group (SHS) individuals appear to be

largely in agreement about what does and does not constitute an adequate description of sexual

consent. Of the 31 descriptions provided by The Panel, individuals seemingly came to consensus

on the relevance of 24 descriptions (77%) describing the concept of sexual consent. Similar

studies in expert/ consumer research, note that such a consensus percentage is ideal when

attempting to further understand and develop culturally congruent interventions and guidelines

for nuanced topics such as post disaster psychosocial care protocols and the development of a

mental health first aid programs for Indigenous Australians (Bisson et al., 2010; Hart et al.

2009). Taken together, the current study suggests that The Panel’s findings may help further

define the relevance of a shared knowledge around the concept of what defines Sexual Consent.

Such information may be relevant when considering educational and preventative programing

around Sexual consent and sexual consent communication.

Regarding the descriptions of sexual consent provided by participants in Round One, The

Panel reached a level of consensus of over 90% (Major Consensus) on seven descriptions of

sexual consent provided by the individuals on the panel (descriptions 3, 4, 5,6,15, & 23). As

noted in the results, amongst the seven descriptions which achieved Major Consensus, three

qualities of sexual consent were commonly shared and mentioned specifically by participants in

qualitative feedback (Sexual consent should be freely/given without influence; Sexual consent

should be ongoing; Sexual consent should be permission granting/ affirming). Taken together the

strong qualitative and quantitative feedback suggest that participants both collectively and

individually, support the qualities that sexual consent should be freely given without coercion,

permission granting/ affirming and ongoing through an interaction. These qualities are shared

values of sexual violence prevention programs and aspirational models of sexual consent such as

affirmative consent (Soble, 2002). Therefore, these results suggest that across our panel, despite

differing sexual orientations, age, gender identities, and exposure to violence prevention

literature, The Panel shares a common understanding and shared appreciation for these qualities

of sexual consent. Our data suggests further exploration into the role of demographic features

such as gender identity and sexual orientation and their relationship to sexual consent

understanding may be warranted. Historically, other studies have cited factors such as gender

identity have been impactful when considering sexual consent and sexual consent

communication, our findings suggest further exploration of these demographic factors as well

additional factors ( e.g. age, educational achievement) may be relevant as well(Jozkowski et al.,

2017; Peplau, 2003).

Additionally, the cohesion amongst the panel that our results suggest may also speak to

the influence of sexual script theory on individuals understanding of and enactment of sexual

consent and sexual consent communication. For the current study, participants were sourced

from North America and were living and working in the United States and Canada at the time of

the study. Thus, the overall cohesion between SHS and the The Panel as a whole provide

additional support for the influence of common cultural scenarios in the process of developing

beliefs, attitudes, and expectations (intrapersonal scripts) regarding sexual consent and sexual

consent communication behaviors (Simon and Gagnon, 1986). Furthermore, relationship status

and duration of relationship have all been associated with impacting perceptions of sexual

consent (Humphreys, 2007). As ThePanel of the current study largely identified as being in a

committed monogamous relationship, it is plausible that these shared experiences also influenced

the level of cohesion amongst participants. Therefore, the results of the current study also may

lend support to examining the impacts of relationship status and duration of relationship on

sexual consent communication and conceptualization.

Based on the initial qualitative responses of both SHS groups and The Panel, six

categories of sexual consent qualities were derived by the researcher. These qualities of sexual

consent emphasize mutuality, confirmation of consent by verbal and nonverbal behaviors, and

the impact of inequity on consent between partners. The six qualities of sexual consent derived

were: (1) Sexual consent should be mutual between all parties (2) Sexual consent should be

permission granting/ affirming. (3) Sexual consent should be confirmed via verbal and non-

verbal behaviors. (4) Sexual consent should be freely/given without influence. (5) Sexual consent

should be ongoing. (6) Sexual consent should be reversible/ revocable. These findings from the

current study may lend to future research as the process of defining sexual consent amongst

individuals is novel. Within literature there have been instances of research authors have been

known to engage in “spontaneous consent”; that is, failing to define the subject (Beres, 2007).

Findings from the current study regarding the qualities of sexual consent also share a

similarities with with the seven tenants of affirmative consent (Antioch College, 2016). The

qualities derived in this study and the seven tenants of affirmative consent largely overlap,

especially in the notions of sexual consent being ongoing, permission granting/affirming and

given freely without coercion (Soble, 2002). Interestingly, The Panel differed from the tenants

in one key way which was they did not include the central tenant of affirmative consent, verbal

consent. More specifically, as a model of violence prevention, the Antioch College affirmative

consent model heavily emphasizes “if the level of sexual intimacy increases during an

interaction… the people involved need to express their clear verbal consent before moving to

that new level” (Soble, 2002, p. 327). Aspirationally, this tenant would mean that when

practiced, those engaging in sexual consent communication with affirmative consent would

confirm activity with verbal communication behavior-ideally an enthusiastic “yes!” (Affirmative

Consent and Respect., 2017). However, participants in the current study provided 31 descriptions

of sexual consent, which noted the importance of consent being “ongoing”, but they did not

reference a need for parties to engage in an overtly verbal consent behaviors during escalation of

sexual activity.

The qualities provided and affirmed by the Panel suggest that conceptually, despite

differences in demographic factors (e.g., sexual orientation, gender identity, SHS), the values and

qualities of sexual consent amongst the Panel are largely consistent with aspirational models of

sexual consent. These findings again suggest that there may be more of a common understanding

of sexual consent—based on shared cultural scripts, at least in response to formal questions--

among individuals who share a cultural script (Beres, 2007). However, more research across

different communities (even within the U.S.) is warranted. It is also worth noting that responding

to questions on an academic survey may be different then real-world sexual consent

communication between (potential) sexual partners—for both expert and community SHS

members.

In Round Two and Three, participants were asked to review and rank order the six

qualities of sexual consent in order of importance. During these rankings more diverse thinking

was evident amongst The Panel. Specifically, when compared to their female-identified sexual

researcher counterparts, a majority of MSM members (and one sexual researcher who also

identified as MSM) endorsed Sexual Consent should be mutual (n=8) as most important by

placing it in the first rank order position. In contrast the female-identified sexual researchers,

noted the most important qualities to be Sexual consent should be permission granting (n=3)/

affirming and sexual consent should be freely given (n=2). Interestingly the value placed on

mutuality of sexual consent by male-identified participants, and permission granting by female

participants, are in line with the cultural scenario of men being “pleasure seekers” and women

being “gate keepers” (Hirsch et al., 2019; Jozkowski, 2013; 2015; Peplau 2003). Additionally,

during the initial ranking the quality of Sexual consent should be freely given had five

participants indicate it belonged in the sixth rank order position (the lowest position), this

number of participants doubled (n=10) in the second ranking of sexual consent qualities. Thus,

within the confines of the study, these results may provide some support for the impact of

cultural scenarios on personal beliefs around the value of some sexual consent qualities over

others.

Sexual Non-Consent

Reviewing sexual consent literature, relatively few studies look at or explicitly examine

sexual non-consent (Cook & Messman-Moore, 2018; Struckman-Johnson et al., 2003; McKie et

al., 2020). In the current study, sexual non-consent was explored through two of the rounds of

this Delphi study. Initially 20 descriptions of sexual non-consent were produced by participants

in round two and were rated by the Panel in the subsequent round three. Interestingly, of the 20

descriptions of sexual non-consent produced, 19 met a form of group agreement, with one

description meeting criterion for Major Consensus (>90%). Again, our results suggest a level of

uniformity amongst the panel which seemingly is novel when compared to other studies of

experiences of sexual consent communication (Hirsch et al., 2019; Jozkowski, 2013; King et al.

2020). However, these preliminary findings should be follow up in subsequent studies, with

larger and more diverse groups of participants to verify that the findings can persist.

The Panel expressed high levels of agreement amongst the quantitative data, thus when

examining the qualitative data a fuller picture of participants experience and thoughts regarding

sexual non-consent is painted. The strongest description produced by the panel was (as rated by

the Panel) was description 7 which read:

Not giving consent would include when not all parties agree to the sexual activity.

This non-consent can take the form of verbal and non-verbal cues (e.g., saying

"No," pushing someone away), reversing a decision for consent that may have

been given earlier, when an involved party is not an adult, or an adult in a power

dynamic not capable of consent in the first place (e.g., child, prisoner, mental

health considerations).

Description 7 (together with Description 8) also received strong qualitative feedback with

one MSM participant remarking: “No 7 and 8 are great examples because they also include

mental state (clouded by drugs or alcohol) and power dynamics as forcing non consent. Non

consent is more than just no”. The views expressed in this statement are meaningful when

relating back to larger concepts of both sexual violence prevention and sexual consent

communication. Critics of early sexual consent campaigns, such as the “no means no”

movements, have argued that the word “no” is an oversimplification—and not the only

indication--of non-consent (Kitzinger & Frith, 1999; Marcantonio & Jozkowski, 2020). Research

into sexual non-consent describe sexual non-consent as having multiple levels, including a lack

of desire, regret, social manipulation, and a violation of personal boundary (Cook & Messman-

Moore, 2018; Struckman-Johnson et al., 2003; McKie et al., 2020). As noted by the results

produced by The Panel in our current study, it appears The Panel’s perceptions of sexual non-

consent are in line with the literature on this topic.

Similarly, The Panel consistently noted the impact and need to speak to power dynamics

and other coercive forces when examining sexual non-consent. These results are line with

contemporary literature on sexual violence prevention that suggests the importance of power

differentials in non-consensual interactions. Specifically, gender dynamics, sexual minority

status, age, and intimidation have been noted as means of sexual exploitation in studies (Cook &

Messman-Moore, 2018; Rich, 1980; Struckman-Johnson et al., 2003). Thus, the results recorded

from this study, lend support to the practice of integrating these concepts (i.e., power

differentials and social dynamics) into sexual violence prevention at large. Furthermore, the

results from the current study may lend to further exploration around the concepts of extraneous

forces on the communication of sexual consent and sexual consent communication.

Interestingly, within our panel, there was some diversity in thought when comparing

stakeholder groups. Within the MSM SHS group qualitative comments revealed differences in

views of sexual non-consent that are not apparent in the quantitative data. In qualitative feedback

to descriptions 11 and 15:

(11) “Non-consent is any sexual action that occurs that is not agreed upon, occurs with a

power differential, one of the members is influenced by a substance, there is force, or finally that

consent is withdrawn but the action continues.” and (15)” … This can also include moments

where an individual is unable to provide consent, such as when someone is drinking alcohol or is

unconscious.”.

In response to these descriptions, one MSM participant noted that for him, the use of substances,

specifically alcohol, “does not automatically constitute sexual non-consent”. The qualitative

feedback provided by this MSM member aligns with documented literature regarding some

sexual practices and beliefs within the MSM community regarding substance use during sexual

intercourse (Giorgetti, 2017; McKie et al., 2020; Palamar et al., 2014). However, in contrast to

this participant, other MSM participants within the current study noted the importance and

centrality of substance use and “mental state” when considering sexual non-consent and the

communication of sexual non consent. These conflicts regarding substance use and sexual

consent and sexual consent communication practices, has also been an area of concern with

researchers and advocates within MSM communities (Abbey, 1987; McKie et al., 2020;

Newcomb, 2014). Differences in these opposing opinions may reflect different cultural values

within our Panel of MSM participants and potentially the MSM community itself. Furthermore,

these differences may also reflect different values and preferences regarding those who engage

monogamous relationships (as our Panel members overwhelmingly were in monogamous

relationships) which has been noted in other studies to affect perception of sexual consent and its

communication (Humphreys, 2007).

Nonverbal Sexual Consent Communication Behaviors

A novel element of the current study is the examination of nonverbal sexual consent

communication behaviors, specifically the interpretation of nonverbal sexual consent behaviors.

To the authors’ knowledge, several studies exist examining the use of nonverbal sexual consent

communication behaviors in college-aged population, but this is the first study to examine these

behaviors outside of this group (Johnson & Hoover, 2015; Jozkowski & Humphreys, 2014).

Initially participants reviewed and provided qualitative feedback regarding Beres et al.’s (2007)

list of nonverbal sexual consent behaviors. Nineteen participants noted no changes or offered no

additional feedback to the list of nonverbal behaviors. When examining those 19, proportionally

MSM participants were less likely to offer no feedback when compared to their sexual researcher

peers.

As alluded to earlier, demographics of those in the sexual researchers group largely

identify as female compared to exclusively male-identified MSM group. This discrepancy in

commentary, therefore, speak to trend differences between these two groups to utilize nonverbal

sexual consent communication behaviors. These results seemingly support one trend in literature

which the gendered difference in level of value placed on nonverbal sexual consent

communication behaviors by male-identified individuals when compared to female-identified

individuals (Hall, 1998; Jozkowski & Peterson, 2013; King et al. 2020). Additionally, our

results mirror information in literature which highlights specific nonverbal sexual consent

communication behaviors observed within the MSM community. Particularly, several comments

made by MSM participants reference behaviors such as: eyeing a partner, standing in a urinal for

an unusually long time, flashing headlights, following a partner, leaving a shower door open,

passing a partner multiple times while making eye contact. These behaviors are in line with well

documented cruising behaviors which are common exchanges of nonverbal consent

communication amongst MSM (Frankis & Flowers, 2009; Mckie et al. 2020). Thus, when taken

together, the participation in offering nonverbal qualitative comments may offer additional. this

split amongst participants is notable as noted previous sections they have largely been high levels

of cohesion.

Nonverbal sexual consent communication behaviors were explored further in this study

as The Panel was tasked with sorting the expanded nonverbal communication behaviors list into

categories of usage. Current literature on nonverbal sexual consent communication behaviors is

mixed, as it is often reported there are gendered (heteronormative) experiences of interpretation

and subscription to use of nonverbal sexual consent communication behaviors to receive sexual

consent (King et al.2020; Righi et al., 2019; Willis & Jozkowski, 2019). However, the enactment

of nonverbal sexual consent communication behaviors to convey sexual consent is equally

preferred by both males and females (Hall, 1998; Curtis & Burnett, 2017; Marcantonio &

Jozkowski, 2020; Shumlich & Fisher, 2018). Thus, in the current study, twenty-nine nonverbal

sexual consent communication behaviors were sorted among a Panel of 18 individuals and two

SHS groups (sexual researchers and MSM). The nonverbal sexual consent communication

behaviors were sorted into six categories by the Panel (e.g., Consent Giving Behavior, a Consent

Seeking Behavior, an Interchangeable Behavior, Ambiguous behavior, a Refusal behavior or an

Unused Behavior). The Panel came to a level of agreement on 24 nonverbal sexual consent

communication behaviors and their usage. Interestingly, only one behavior “The behavior of

distancing onself physically from a partner”, reached Major consensus with 95% of the panel

noting this nonverbal communication behavior was a Refusal behavior. This finding is in line

with much of the current literature on sexual consent communication (Marcantonio &

Jozkowski, 2020).

As noted, much of the current literature on sexual consent communication behaviors note

a gendered experience in the perception of and use of Sexual consent communication behaviors

(King et al.2020; Righi et al., 2019; Willis & Jozkowski, 2019). Thus, when examining the data

provided by The Panel, an examination of the possibility of gendered experiences of nonverbal

sexual communication was done via the use of a chi square test of independence. Utilizing a chi

square test of independence between two groups (Sexual Researchers and MSM [including 1

MSR]) no behaviors were determined to operate independently, meaning we were unable to

reject the null hypothesis and thus it appears that an individual’s identity did not impact their

sorting of nonverbal sexual consent communication behaviors. However, when examining the

data amongst three groups (Sexual Researchers, MSM, and MSR) four nonverbal behaviors were

found to have a p value >.05 and thus the null hypothesis was able to be rejected. This again

suggests that there may be more information to be explored when considering a larger more

diverse group of individuals. Follow-up studies that take a more in depth look at how nonverbal

consent behaviors are made and interpreted within the MSM community are warranted, as the

current data seems to only begin to suggest that important differences exist in the areas

nonverbal sexual consent behaviors.

Overall, the implications of these results suggest what is largely documented in research

in college-aged populations, that nonverbal sexual consent communication behaviors exist and

are utilized by sexually active individuals (Humphreys & Brousseau, 2010; Humphreys &

Herold, 2007; Jozkowski & Peterson, 2013; King et al. 2020). These results are also novel in the

fact that the indicate while nonverbal consent behaviors are being used by a variety of

individuals, and many of those behaviors were categorized were categorized similarly across

both researchers (mostly female identified) and community members (mostly male identified).

Additionally, only a small number of non-verbal consent behaviors were distinctly identified as

overtly indicative of consent or non-consent (most other behaviors were identified as

interactional or ambiguous). Consequently, the need to have communities explore just want

particular non-verbal consent behaviors mean, and expanding the repertoire of those behaviors,

may be an important next step in sexual consent research.

Strengths and Limitations

The current study boasts several strengths, including its mixed methodological approach

to examining complex topics like sexual consent and sexual non-consent (Jorm, 2015). The use

of open-ended questions, open and axial coding, as well quantitative measurements allowed for

richer and deeper insight into the Panel’s experience with these topics. Furthermore, the diverse

make up of sexual orientations, gender identities, and ages, of participants of this study are

unique to sexual consent research reviewed and should be considered a strength of this study.

While the study as several strengths, including strengths related to the Delphi method, it

is not without limitations. For example, as with most elements of group consensus research, the

current study was structured around a form of “group think”. Thus, when considering such broad

ranging topics such as sexual consent, sexual non-consent, and nonverbal sexual consent

communication behaviors, it becomes very important to note who constitutes that group. In the

current study, there was a relative lack of racial, ethnic, consensually non-monogamous, and

educational diversity amongst the participants, which certainly impacted the data and outcomes.

This study also used a snowballing method of recruitment, and once identified participants had

an option to nominate an individual who they felt also met criteria for inclusion. Therefore, the

trustworthiness and generalizability of these results may be limited as there may be self-selection

bias and an inadvertent silo as a result of the snowball methodology employed. Finally, this

study looked at broad ranging topics, thus could have provided opportunities for deeper

reflection on specific elements of this area. Specifically, participants could have explored

nonverbal sexual consent communication behaviors in more depth had they had the opportunity

to review and provide feedback to other participants sorting.

Implications for Violence Prevention and Practice

The findings of the current study have implications for a variety of stakeholders and

future directions in research. First and foremost, the results of the current study demonstrate a

surprising level of cohesion, even across participants of various educational, gender and sexual

identities. Compared to past research, which suggests gender differences regarding views and

experiences of sexual consent and sexual consent communication (Jozkowski & Peterson, 2013;

King et. al, 2020; Peplau, 2003), the panel in this study showed high levels of cohesions across

tasks. Taken together, the findings are intriguing and suggest there may be more benefits

centered around this topic examining inter-group similarities around the concepts of sexual

consent communication. This may be a result of the age or educational status of participants in

this study, none-the-less these findings provide a platform to begin to consider what components

of sexual consent communication may be more common across communities, and which may be

unique to specific communities.

Regarding the concept of sexual consent and sexual non-consent, the findings of this

study bring about additional questions around what notions of sexual consent and sexual non-

consent are held in esteem by individuals. Our panel showed some interest that the core notions

of mutuality, lack of coercion, and ongoing consent were central across the Panel and other

models of consent boasted in research (Soble, 2002). Also noteworthy is the absence of verbal

consent communication behaviors as being the absolute in the consent communication process,

especially regarding confirming sexual consent is present through the duration of an encounter.

Furthermore, the notion of sexual non-consent is more than just a verbal “no” is apparent

throughout the Panel members. Sexual non-consent in general, and non-verbal non-consent

communication behaviors, warrants much more research—especially within and across

communities. Studies that seek to understand how consent (and non-consent) are communicated

non-verbally are imperative if we are to truly prevent sexual violence and promote sex positivity

across communities. These studies are especially needed amongst underrepresented communities

in psychological and violence prevention research including and not limited to: black, indigenous

people of color (BIPOC), the educationally diverse including non-college, and the consensually

non-monogamous.

This study also noted the impacts of sub-culture membership such as MSM may

influence views in these two areas—as does previous literature in the area (Beres, & MacDonald,

2015; Frankis & Flowers, 2005; Pitagora, 2013). Further research within non-majority based,

cultures may be warranted to help examine the impact of sub cultural behaviors on interpersonal

scripts and intrapersonal beliefs related to sexual consent in the context of substance use and

non-monogamous sexual interactions. Providing safety standards, especially in the area

recreation drug use, may also be an important point research agenda related to sexual consent.

Perhaps the most important, though incomplete, implication of this study is just how little

is known and understood about non-verbal consent behaviors. Clearly, non-verbal consent

behaviors are central to the lived experiences, and research understanding, of our Panel Members

(both MSM and Researchers). There was also a significant amount of agreement about how to

categorize specific non-verbal consent behaviors (e.g., consent-giving, consent requesting,

ambiguous, non-consenting). However, because the amount of behaviors that were clearly

categorized as consent-giving is extremely small, we argue that both research and community

campaigns are need to provide better understanding and community norms in this area. In terms

of research, we argue that it is imperative to gain knowledge on how people from different

communities and identities give consent non-verbally, how that message received (encoded) by

others, and how non-verbal consent encoding also differs by community, gender (and gender

scripts; citation), and type of sexual interaction. It is only with better understanding, followed by

intentional positive norm setting by community stake-holders, that we might make progress

toward a more healthy sexual consent communication strategies. Furthermore, as this is overall a

smaller subsection of a group, more follow up with larger and even more diverse participants is

warranted.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the current study engaged in a consumer/expert exploration of sexual

consent amongst two SHS groups: MSM and sexual researchers. The current study sought to add

to the literature in this field, and particularly address a gap in the literature regarding an

understudied and complex topic, sexual consent, sexual non-consent, and nonverbal sexual

communication behaviors. The findings of the current study reveal despite differing sexual

orientations, gender identities, and experiences with sexual violence prevention literature, largely

the Panel shared common views regarding these topics. Furthermore, the group was able to

highlight the diversity of their views regarding sexual consent communication and specifically

nonverbal sexual consent communication behaviors.

Literature supports education and conversation around sexual consent and verbal sexual

consent communication behaviors are an effective means of supporting sexual violence

prevention. However, the findings of the current study highlight the need to broaden the scope

this conversation and encourage further research and attention to the presence and impact of

nonverbal sexual consent communication behaviors in lived experiences of individuals.

Furthermore, the complex results of this study highlight the need to work on and explore sexual

consent communication practices with a wider variety of sexually active individuals to better

understand these practices outside of the collegiate atmosphere.

References

Abbey, A. (1982). Sex differences in attributions for friendly behavior: Do males misperceive females'

friendliness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(5), 830-838.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.5.830

Abbey, A. (1987). Misperceptions of Friendly Behavior as Sexual Interest: A Survey of Naturally

Occurring Incidents. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11(2), 173-194. doi:10.1111/j.1471-

6402.1987.tb00782.x

Abbey, A., Ross, L. T., Mcduffie, D., & Mcauslan, P. (1996). Alcohol and Dating Risk Factors for

Sexual Assault Among College Women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20(1), 147-169.

doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00669.x

Affirmative Consent and Respect. (2017). Affirmative consent campus policy report. Retrieved

from http://affirmativeconsent.com/consentpolicy/

Airey, J. L. (2018). #MeToo. Tulsa Studies in Women's Literature 37(1), 7-13. The University of Tulsa.

Retrieved April 28, 2019, from Project MUSE database. doi:10.1353/tsw.2018.0000

Ali, R. (2011). Dear colleague letter from assistant secretary for civil rights Russlynn Ali.

Washington, DC: Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.html

Antioch College. Sexual Offense Prevention Policy (SOPP) overview. 2016. Available online:

https://www.antiochcollege.edu/sites/default/files/04.015_Sexual-Offense-Prevention-

Policy.pdf.

Association of American Universities. (2015). Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual

Misconduct. Retrieved from https://www.aau.edu/key-issues/aau-climate-survey-sexual-

assault-and-sexual-misconduct-2015

Beres, M. A. (2007). ‘Spontaneous’ Sexual Consent: An Analysis of Sexual Consent

Literature. Feminism & Psychology, 17(1), 93-108. doi:10.1177/0959353507072914

Beres, M. A. (2014). Rethinking the concept of consent for anti-sexual violence activism and

education. Feminism & Psychology, 24(3), 373-389. doi:10.1177/0959353514539652

Beres, M. A., Herold, E., & Maitland, S. B. (2004). Sexual Consent Behaviors in Same-Sex

Relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33(5), 475-486.

doi:10.1023/b:aseb.0000037428.41757.10

Beres, M., & MacDonald, J. (2015). Talking About Sexual Consent: Heterosexual women and

BDSM. Australian Feminist Studies, 30(86), 418–432.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08164649.2016.1158692

Beckmann, A. (2003). “Sexual rights” and “sexual responsibilities” within consensual “S/M” practice.

In M. Cowling & P. Reynolds (Eds.), Making sense of sexual consent (pp. 195–208).

Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Block, M. (2004). Consent. In M. D. Smith (Ed.), Encyclopedia of rape

(pp. 51–52). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Bowen, A. (2005). Internet sexuality research with rural men who have sex with men: Can

we recruit and retain them? Journal of Sex Research, 42(4), 317-323.

doi:10.1080/00224490509552287

Bullock, D. (2004). Lesbian Cruising: An Examination of the Concept and Methods. Journal of

Homosexuality, 47(2), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v47n02_01

Camilleri, J. A., Quinsey, V. L., & Tapscott, J. L. (2008). Assessing the Propensity for Sexual Coaxing

and Coercion in Relationships: Factor Structure, Reliability, and Validity of the Tactics to

Obtain Sex Scale. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(6), 959-973. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9377-

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2017). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance- United States

2017. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/pdf/2017/ss6708.pdf

Cook, N., & Messman-Moore, T. (2018). I Said No: The Impact of Voicing Non-Consent on Women’s

Perceptions of and Responses to Rape. Violence Against Women, 24(5), 507–527.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801217708059

Curtis, J. N., & Burnett, S. (2017). Affirmative Consent: What Do College Student Leaders Think

About “Yes Means Yes” as the Standard for Sexual Behavior? American Journal of Sexuality

Education, 12(3), 201-214. doi:10.1080/15546128.2017.1328322

Dalkey, O. (1969). THE DELPHI METHOD: AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF GROUP OPINION.

de la Ossa, A. C. (2016). ‘Talk, listen, think’: Discourses of agency and unintentional violence in

consent guidance for gay, bisexual and trans men. Discourse & Society, 27(4), 365-382.

doi:10.1177/0957926516634549

Decker, J. F., & Baroni, P. G. (2011). "No" still means "yes": the failure of the "non-consent" reform

movement in American rape and sexual assault law. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,

101(4), 1081+.

https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A283591886/EAIM?u=ndacad_58202zund&sid=bookmark-

EAIM&xid=7f42d44f

De León, S., Jackson, S., Lowenthal, A., Ammiano, A., Beall, S., Cannella, S., ... & Wolk, S. (2014)

Senate Bill 967- Student safety: Sexual assault. California Legislative Information. Retrieved

from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtmlDworkin, S. L., &

O'Sullivan, L. (2005). Actual versus desired initiation patterns among a sample of college men:

Tapping disjunctures within traditional male sexual scripts. Journal of Sex Research, 42(2), 150-

158. doi:10.1080/00224490509552268

Edgar, T., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1993). Expectations for sexual interaction: A cognitive test of

the sequencing of sexual communication behaviors. Health Communication, 5, 239–261.

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327027hc0504_1

Fantasia, H. C. (2011). Really not even a decision any more. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 7(3), 120-

129. doi:10.1111/j.1939-3938.2011.01108.x

Frankis, J., & Flowers, P. (2009). Public Sexual Cultures: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Research

Investigating Men’s Sexual Behaviors with Men in Public Spaces. Journal of

Homosexuality, 56(7), 861–893. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918360903187846

Forbes, A., & Hutchison, A. (2020). Counseling Competencies for the English-Speaking

Caribbean. The Counseling Psychologist, 48(5), 657–684.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000020911007

Hall, D.S. (1998) Consent for Sexual Behavior in a College Student Population. Electronic Journal of

Human Sexuality 1. www.ejhs.org

Halley, J. (2016). The Move to Affirmative Consent. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and

Society, 42(1), 257–279. https://doi.org/10.1086/686904

Hasson, F., Keeney, S., & McKenna, H. (2000). Research guidelines for the Delphi survey

technique. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(4), 1008–1015. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-

2648.2000.01567.x

Hickman, S. E., & Muehlenhard, C. L. (1999). “By the semi‐mystical appearance of a condom”: How

young women and men communicate sexual consent in heterosexual situations. Journal of Sex

Research, 36(3), 258-272. doi:10.1080/00224499909551996

Hirsch, J., Khan, S., Wamboldt, A., & Mellins, C. (2019). Social Dimensions of Sexual Consent

Among Cisgender Heterosexual College Students: Insights From Ethnographic

Research. Journal of Adolescent Health, 64(1), 26–35.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.06.011

Chia-Chien Hsu, & Brian A. Sandford. (2007). The Delphi Technique: Making Sense of

Consensus. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12(10), 1–8.

Forbes, A., & Hutchison, A. (2020). Counseling Competencies for the English-Speaking

Caribbean. The Counseling Psychologist, 48(5), 657–684.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000020911007

Humphreys, T. (2007). Perceptions of Sexual Consent: The Impact of Relationship History and

Gender. Journal of Sex Research, 44(4), 307-315. doi:10.1080/00224490701586706

Humphreys, T. P., & Brousseau, M. M. (2010). The sexual consent scale-revised: Development,

reliability, and preliminary validity. Journal of Sex Research, 47, 420–428.

doi:10.1080/00224490903151358

Humphreys, T. P., & Herold, E. (2007). Sexual Consent in Heterosexual Relationships: Development of

a New Measure. Sex Roles, 57, 305–315.doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9264-7

Javaid, A. (2018). Out of place: Sexualities, sexual violence, and heteronormativity. Aggression and

Violent Behavior, 39, 83-89. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2018.02.007

Johnson, A. M., & Hoover, S. M. (2015). The potential of sexual consent interventions on college

campuses: A literature review on the barriers to establishing affirmative sexual consent. Pure

Insights, 4(5), 1–4.

Jorm AF. Using the Delphi expert consensus method in mental health research. Australian & New

Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. 2015;49(10):887-897. doi:10.1177/0004867415600891

Jozkowski, K. N. (2015). “Yes Means Yes”? Sexual Consent Policy and College Students. Change:

The Magazine of Higher Learning, 47(2), 16-23. doi:10.1080/00091383.2015.1004990

Jozkowski KN and Humphreys TP, Sexual consent on college campuses: implications for sexual assault

prevention education, Health Education Monograph Series, 2014, 31 ( 2 ): 30 – 36

Jozkowski, K. N., Marcantonio, T. L., & Hunt, M. E. (2017). College Students Sexual Consent

Communication And Perceptions of Sexual Double Standards: A Qualitative Investigation.

Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 49(4), 237-244. doi:10.1363/psrh.12041

Jozkowski, K. N., & Peterson, Z. D. (2013). College Students and Sexual Consent: Unique

Insights. Journal of Sex Research, 50(6), 517-523. doi:10.1080/00224499.2012.700739

Jozkowski, K. N., Peterson, Z. D., Sanders, S. A., Dennis, B., & Reece, M. (2013). Gender Differences

in Heterosexual College Students' Conceptualizations and Indicators of Sexual Consent:

Implications for Contemporary Sexual Assault Prevention Education. The Journal of Sex

Research, 51(8), 904-916. doi:10.1080/00224499.2013.792326

Jozkowski, K. N., Sanders, S., Peterson, Z. D., Dennis, B., & Reece, M. (2014). Consenting to Sexual

Activity: The Development and Psychometric Assessment of Dual Measures of

Consent. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(3), 437-450. doi:10.1007/s10508-013-0225-7

King, B., Fallon, M., Reynolds, E., Williamson, K., Barber, A., & Giovinazzo, A. (2020). College

Students’ Perceptions of Concurrent/Successive Nonverbal Behaviors as Sexual

Consent. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 886260520905544–886260520905544.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520905544

Kitzinger, C., & Frith, H. (1999). Just Say No? The Use of Conversation Analysis in Developing a

Feminist Perspective on Sexual Refusal. Discourse & Society, 10(3), 293–

316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926599010003002

Klinkenberg, D., & Rose, S. (1994). Dating scripts of gay men and lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality,

26, 23–35. DOI: 10.1300/J082v26n04_02

Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Giga, N. M., Villenas, C. & Danischewski, D. J. (2016). The 2015

National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and

queer youth in our nation’s schools. New York: GLSEN.

Linstone, H., & Turoff, M. (1975). The Delphi method : techniques and applications . Addison-Wesley

Pub. Co., Advanced Book Program.

Marcantonio, T., & Jozkowski, K. (2020). Assessing How Gender, Relationship Status, and Item

Wording Influence Cues Used by College Students to Decline Different Sexual Behaviors. The

Journal of Sex Research, 57(2), 260–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1659218

McCormick, N. B. (1979). Come-ons and Put-offs: Unmarried Students' Strategies for Having and

Avoiding Sexual Intercourse. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 4(2), 194-211.

doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1979.tb00708.x

McCormick, N. B. (1987). Sexual Scripts: Social and therapeutic implications. Sexual and Marital

Therapy, 2(1), 3-27. doi:10.1080/02674658708407734

McKie, R., Skakoon-Sparling, S., Levere, D., Sezlik, S., & Humphreys, T. (2020). Is There Space for

Our Stories? An Examination of North American and Western European Gay, Bi, and Other

100

Men Who Have Sex with Men’s Non-consensual Sexual Experiences. The Journal of Sex

Research, 57(8), 1014–1025. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2020.1767023

Muehlenhard, C. L., Humphreys, T. P., Jozkowski, K. N., & Peterson, Z. D. (2016). The Complexities

of Sexual Consent Among College Students: A Conceptual and Empirical Review. The Journal

of Sex Research, 53(4-5), 457-487. doi:10.1080/00224499.2016.1146651

Nair, R., Aggarwal, R., & Khanna, D. (2011). Methods of Formal Consensus in

Classification/Diagnostic Criteria and Guideline Development. Seminars in Arthritis and

Rheumatism, 41(2), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2010.12.001

Newcomb, M. (2014). Prevalence and patterns of smoking, alcohol use, and illicit drug use in young

men who have sex with men. Drug and Alcohol Dependence., 141.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.05.005

Orchowski, L. M., Barnett, N. P., Berkowitz, A., Borsari, B., Oesterle, D., & Zlotnick, C. (2018).

Sexual Assault Prevention for Heavy Drinking College Men: Development and Feasibility of an

Integrated Approach. Violence Against Women, 24(11), 1369–

1396. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801218787928

Ortiz-Torres, B., Williams, S., & Ehrhardt, A. (2003). Urban women’s gender scripts: Implications for

HIV prevention. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 5(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/713804639

Palamar, J. J. , Kiang, M. V. , Storholm, E. D. , & Halkitis, P. N. (2014). A qualitative descriptive study

of perceived sexual effects of club drug use in gay and bisexual men. Psychology & Sexuality ,

5(2), 143–160. https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.und.edu/10.1080/19419899.2012.679363

Parsons, J. T., Starks, T. J., Gamarel, K. E., & Grov, C. (2012). Non-monogamy and sexual relationship

quality among same-sex male couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(5), 669-677.

doi:10.1037/a0029561

101

Peplau, Letitia Anne. (2003). Human Sexuality: How Do Men and Women Differ? Current Directions

in Psychological Science: a Journal of the American Psychological Society, 12(2), 37–40.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01221

Pitagora, D. (2013). Consent vs. coercion: BDSM interactions highlight a fine but immutable line. New

School Psychology Bulletin, 10(1), 27–36.

Pugh, B., & Becker, P. (2018). Exploring definitions and prevalence of verbal sexual coercion and its

relationship to consent to unwanted sex: Implications for affirmative consent standards on

college campuses. Behavioral Sciences. 8(8), 69; doi:10.3390/bs8080069

Raffaele Giorgetti, Adriano Tagliabracci, Fabrizio Schifano, Simona Zaami, Enrico Marinelli, &

Francesco Paolo Busardò. (2017). When “Chems” Meet Sex: A Rising Phenomenon Called

“ChemSex.” Current Neuropharmacology, 15(5), 762–770.

https://doi.org/10.2174/1570159X15666161117151148

Rich, A. (1980). Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence. Signs, 5(4), 631-660. Retrieved

from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3173834

Righi, M. K., Bogen, K. W., Kuo, C., & Orchowski, L. M. (2019). A qualitative analysis of beliefs

about sexual consent among high school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance

online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0886260519842855

ROSE, S., & FRIEZE, I. H. (1989). YOUNG SINGLES’ SCRIPTS FOR A FIRST DATE. Gender &

Society, 3(2), 258–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124389003002006

Rosenthal, D., Gifford, S., & Moore, S. (1998). Safe sex or safe love: Competing discourses? AIDS

Care, 10(1), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540129850124569

102

Ross, A., Kelly, C., & Jorm, A. (2014). Re-development of mental health first aid guidelines for

suicidal ideation and behaviour: a Delphi study. BMC Psychiatry, 14(1), 241–241.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-014-0241-8

Ross, M. W., Tikkanen, R., & Mansson, S. A. (2000). Differences between Internet samples and

conventional samples of men who have sex with men: Implications for research and HIV

interventions. Social Science and Medicine, 51, 749–758.

Rule, N., & Alaei, R. (2016). Gaydar: The Perception of Sexual Orientation From Subtle Cues. Current

Directions in Psychological Science : a Journal of the American Psychological Society, 25(6),

444–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416664403

Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R.P. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: an inquiry into

human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, New Jersey, Lawernce Erlbaum.

Shumlich, E., & Fisher, W. (2018). Affirmative sexual consent? Direct and unambiguous consent is

rarely included in discussions of recent sexual interactions. The Canadian Journal of Human

Sexuality, 27(3), 248–260. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2017-0040

Simms, D. C., & Byers, E. S. (2012). Heterosexual Daters’ Sexual Initiation Behaviors: Use of the

Theory of Planned Behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(1), 105-116. doi:10.1007/s10508-

012-9994-7

Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and change. Archives of Sexual

Behavior, 15(2), 97-120. doi:10.1007/bf01542219

Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (2003). Sexual Scripts: Origins, Influences and Changes. Qualitative

Sociology, 26(4), 491-497. doi:10.1023/b:quas.0000005053.99846.e5

Skulmoski, Hartman, & Krahn, (2007). The Delphi Method for Graduate Research. Journal of

Information Technology Education, 6, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.28945/199

103

Smith, S.G., Zhang, X., Basile, K.C., Merrick, M.T., Wang, J., Kresnow, M., Chen, J. (2018). The

National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2015 Data Brief – Updated

Release. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention.

Soble, A. (2002). The philosophy of sex: Contemporary readings. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and

Littlefield.

Struckman-Johnson, C., Struckman-Johnson, D., & Anderson, P. B. (2003). Tactics of Sexual Coercion

Measure. PsycTESTS Dataset. doi:10.1037/t62165-000

Tewksbury, R. (1996). Cruising for sex in public places: The structure and language of men’s hidden,

erotic worlds. Deviant Behavior, 17(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.1996.9968012

Ward, R. M., Weiner, J., Matthews, M. R., Hogan, K. M., & Popson, H. C. (2012). Alcohol and Sexual

Consent Scale. PsycTESTS Dataset. doi:10.1037/t40728-000

Wiederman, M. W. (2015). Sexual Script Theory: Past, Present, and Future. Handbooks of Sociology

and Social Research, 7-22. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-17341-2_2

Willis, M., Jozkowski, K., & Read, J. (2019). Sexual consent in K-12 sex education: an analysis of

current health education standards in the United States. Sex Education, 19(2), 226–236.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2018.1510769

Willis, M., Jozkowski, K.N. Sexual Precedent’s Effect on Sexual Consent Communication. Arch Sex

Behav 48, 1723–1734 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1348-7

Willis, M., Canan, S., Jozkowski, K., & Bridges, A. (2020). Sexual Consent Communication in Best-

Selling Pornography Films: A Content Analysis. The Journal of Sex Research, 57(1), 52–63.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1655522

104

APPENDIX A

Contingency Tables For significant sorted nonverbal sexual consent communication behaviors

during (SR x MSM x MSR) X

11. The behavior of letting a partner take one’s clothes off. (NV)*

SHS

Consent

Seeking

Consent

Giving

Interchangeable

Ambiguous

Declined

to Sort

Total

1 SRS

2 MSM

3 MSR

Tests

Value

19.6

0.0012

105

15. The behavior of helping a partner undress oneself. (NV)

SHS

Consent

Seeking

Consent

Giving

Interchangeable

Ambiguous

Declined

to Sort

Total

1 SRS

2 MSM

3 MSR

Tests

Value

22.6

0.004

106

21. The behavior of touching oneself. (NV) *

SHS

Consent

Seeking

Consent

Giving

Interchangeable

Ambiguous

Declined

to Sort

Total

1 SRS

2 MSM

3 MSR

Tests

Value

13.5

0.036

107

23. The behavior of avoiding eye contact with a partner (NV)**

SHS

Consent

Seeking

Consent

Giving

Interchangeable

Ambiguous

Declined

to Sort

Refusal

Total

1 SRS

2 MSM

3 MSR

Tests

Value

18.9

0.004