Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Sexuality Research and Social Policy
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Vol.:(0123456789)
Sexuality Research and Social Policy
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-024-00973-w
“Dude, Come On, Like, Let’s Just Do theThing”: Men’s andWomen’s
Navigations ofSexual Communication andSexual Consent inAustralia
AndreaWaling1,2 · AlexandraJames1· LilyMoor1
Accepted: 2 April 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
Abstract
Introduction Notions of effective sexual communication and consent have shifted towards an enthusiastic consent
framework. This study explored how young cisgender heterosexual men and women apply these concepts in
casual sexual encounters.
Methods Six single-gender and mixed gender focus groups of 44 participants were conducted with young cisgender hetero-
sexual men and women living in Australia in 2021. Participants were asked about their dating and sexual practices, as well
as their understanding and navigation of sexual communication and sexual consent practices using vignette methodologies.
Findings were analysed using interpretive phenomenological analysis techniques.
Results The findings highlight tensions between how participants understand what constitutes good practices of sexual com-
munication and consent, and how they expected characters in the vignettes, or themselves, to engage in similar scenarios.
These involved (1) gendered power dynamics in sexual encounters; (2) the need for context in universal assumptions; and
(3) differences between expectations and personal actions in similar scenarios.
Conclusions The participants express a high degree of knowledgeof what constitutes best practice for sexual communica-
tion and sexual consent. However, such knowledgeis not necessarily engaged in their lived experiences of sex for a variety
of reasons.
Policy Implications While current educational and health promotion methods for topics such as sexual communication and
consent are valuable, they may be limited in efficacy. Sexual encounters are often complex, and are influenced by culture,
religion, and various emotions. Decision-making in such situations involves known and unknown variables. A deeper under-
standing of these processes is needed to develop more nuanced resources.
Keywords Men· Communication· Consent· Dating· Sex· Heterosexual· Women
Introduction
Notions of good practice regarding sexual communication
and sexual consent have shifted towards an enthusiastic
consent discourse, emphasising that good sexual consent
practice in sexual situations is ongoing, active, and verbal
(Darnell, 2020). This approach is prevalent in contempo-
rary comprehensive relationships and sexuality education
(RSE) programmes and mandatory consent programmes in
Australia (Meacham, 2022), as well as in the new affirmative
consent legislation in Australian states and territories such as
Victoria (North, 2023). These initiatives are designed to sup-
port broader gender and sexual violence prevention efforts,
with the aim of helping individuals navigate sexual encoun-
ters and ensure positive sexual experiences. In 2023, over
AUD3.5 million in government funding has been allocated
to support the teaching of consent in school and social media
settings for this purpose (Slade, 2023).
Beyond formal education, positive practices related to
sexual consent have also emerged in unconventional set-
tings such as television programmes and social media plat-
forms including TikTok (Calderón-Sandoval etal., 2023;
Fowler etal., 2021; Pulido etal., 2024). Additionally, social
justice movements such as #MeToo have significantly con-
tributed to advancing the discourse on sexual consent, and
* Andrea Waling
a.waling@latrobe.edu.au
1 Australian Research Centre inSex, Health andSociety, La
Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia
2 Department ofHealth, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC,
Australia
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Sexuality Research and Social Policy
educational initiatives such as consent awareness weeks have
effectively promoted sexual consent literacy (Gronert, 2019).
Australian society, like many others, is currently placing a
heightened focus on fostering healthy sexual communication
and consent practices as a means of preventing gender-based
and sexual violence. For example, the recent incidents in the
Australian Parliament regarding the allegations of sexual
violence experienced by Brittany Higgans have contributed
to broader reforms around consent in the workplace (Sawer,
2021). Despite substantial efforts to educate about sexual
communication and consent, driven by the belief that inad-
equate education contributes to experiences of sexual vio-
lence, there remains limited insight into how cisgender het-
erosexual individuals navigate these aspects in their sexual
encounters. It also remains unclear whether they understand
contemporary best practices and consistently apply them to
ensure positive sexual experiences.
Scholarly debates have emerged concerning the necessity
of verbal or alternative expressions for establishing sexual
consent (Beres & MacDonald, 2015; Beres, 2007a, b, 2014,
2020; Gilbert, 2018). Discussions within legal contexts often
oversimplify consent, reducing it to a binary “yes” or “no”,
lacking the flexibility to allow for diverse communication
styles (Dougherty, 2015). Darnell (2020) highlights that this
reduction of consent to binary terms oversimplifies complex
sexual motivations, limiting meaningful conversations. Some
argue that the #MeToo movement has fostered a conservative
perspective on sexual activity, disregarding nonconforming
expressions of sexuality (Matthews, 2020; Waling, 2023c).
The shift from discussions of sexual communication to
sexual consent has sometimes disregarded the emotional and
verbal skills necessary to navigate diverse sexual scenarios.
This shift has placed an emphasis on whether predominantly
cisgender heterosexual women respond with a “yes” or
“no”, the methods used to elicit these responses, and who
respects or disregards them, often focusing on cisgender
heterosexual men. This underscores the need to integrate
sexual communication and consent into sexual agency
(Bauer, 2021; Hindes, 2022; Jeffrey, 2022; Vanwesenbeeck
etal., 2021) recognising that decision-making during sex
involves complex dynamics (Hindes, 2022).
Drawing from qualitative focus groups with cisgender
heterosexual men and women residing in Australia, this
paper explores participants’ knowledge of what are consid-
ered good practices of sexual communication and sexual
consent, in comparison to their practical implementation
of these same practices. The findings, as we highlight,
have important implications for current policy and practice
around mandated consent education programs in Australia
and broader initiatives seeking to support positive sexual
encounters. We use the terms sexual communication and
sexual consent throughout this paper in recognition that
sexual communication is a broad set of communication
practices concerning sex and intimacy, while sexual consent
is a type of permission given (or not given) as a part of those
practices (see Waling, 2023c).
Sexual Consent, Gender, andSelf‑Efficacy
There is a substantial body of research regarding sexual
communication and sexual consent (for comprehensive
overviews of this work, see Fenner (2017) and Muehlenhard
et al. (2016). National and international literature
investigating the perspectives of young cisgender het-
erosexual men and women regarding sexual communica-
tion and consent predominantly centres on relationship
dynamics and communication methods (Jones etal., 2018;
Lehmiller etal., 2014). Studies have also delved into how
sources of information about sexual communication and
sexual consent, such as pornography, movies, and music
videos, can impact understandings and perceptions (e.g.
Allen, 2006; Crabbe & Flood, 2021; Rodgers etal., 2023;
Willis etal., 2020), as well as the role of formal relation-
ship and sexuality education within schools in providing
education on these topics (e.g. Burton etal., 2023; Ezer
etal., 2019; Johnson etal., 2020; Quinlivan, 2018). A
range of research has explored understandings of verbal
and non-verbal signs of sexual communication and consent
(Brady etal., 2018; Darden etal., 2019; Hust etal., 2014,
2017; Lehmiller etal., 2014; Ólafsdottir & Kjaran, 2019;
Willis & Jozkowski, 2019; Willis etal., 2019).
Gendered power dynamics are also significant, whereby
research has found that women are perceived as sexual gate-
keepers whereas men often perceive it as women’s duty to
refuse sexual activities (e.g. Benoit & Ronis, 2022; Beres,
2020; Beres & Farvid, 2010; Beres & MacDonald, 2015;
Carmody, 2003; Gilbert, 2018; Halley, 2016; Jozkowski
etal., 2017; Willis etal., 2019). This binary view of consent
limits women’s exploration of pleasure and power to within
traditional norms, as expressing desire contradicts societal
notions of femininity (Albury, 2002, 2018; Angel, 2021).
Additionally, the binary framework places men in the role
of seeking sex, while women must either agree or decline.
These gendered dynamics have led to suggestions that cam-
paigns focusing solely on improving women’s refusal skills
miss the complexity of refusals in real life, where cultural
norms make it challenging for women to simply decline
(Hardesty etal., 2022; O’Byrne etal., 2006).
Studies have explored young people’s perceptions of
sexual communication and consent using vignettes. These
vignettes describe different consent scenarios, with partici-
pants answering questions about whether the characters con-
sent to sexual activities. Humphreys (2007) discovered that
altering the relationship status between characters in the same
vignettes led to varying consent outcomes. Jozkowski (2015)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Sexuality Research and Social Policy
observed that participants perceived activities as consensual,
but their views changed when presented with non-consensual
information, highlighting the impact of hindsight bias. Build-
ing on this, Willis and Jozkowski (2022) noted that during
vignette reading, participants’ perceptions of momentary
versus retrospective sexual consent varied depending on the
nature of the sexual behaviour. Some studies have noted that
scenarios showed shifts in perceptions of consent violations,
particularly regarding variables like alcohol consumption
(Hills etal., 2021). In other cases where consent was unclear,
participants tended to view the male character as having con-
sented more often (Groggel etal., 2021). Holmström etal.
(2020) explored how the simplicity of saying “yes” or “no”
in casual sexual encounters can become complicated. Addi-
tional vignette studies have investigated the influence of gen-
der norms (e.g. Lofgreen etal., 2021) and sexism and rape
myth acceptance (e.g. Persson & Dhingra, 2022) on partici-
pants’ understanding of sexual consent.
While some older research in Australia has suggested
that education on sexual consent and ethical sexual relations
may have contributed to positive self-reported perspectives
on sexual encounters (Carmody & Ovenden, 2013), inter-
nationally, others have observed that there has not been
a decrease in experiences of sexual violence despite the
implementation of comprehensive sex education in formal
school-based settings that prioritise enthusiastic consent
education (Beres etal., 2019; Pascoe, 2022). As Beres etal.
(2019) argue, knowledge about good consent practices does
not necessarilyaddress the broader issues of gendered vio-
lence rooted in men’s power and presumed entitlement to
women’s bodies.
Achallenge with exploring awareness and knowledge of
a particular issue, such as good sexual communication and
sexual consent practices for promoting change, is that knowl-
edge alone may not suffice (Arlinghaus & Johnston, 2018).
While knowledge is crucial for promoting change, it must be
paired with educational approaches that facilitate practical
application (Arlinghaus & Johnston, 2018). Research has
found that when it comes to matters of sexual health and
sexual practices, knowledge and working towards improving
sexual self-efficacy do not always equate to actual practice
(Arlinghaus & Johnston, 2018). By sexual self-efficacy, we
are referring to an individual’s confidence in applying their
sexual health knowledge into practice, such as discussing
with partners sexual concerns, being sexually assertive, or
using barrier or hormonal contraceptives.
For example, research has found that despite knowledge
about sexual health matters, gender role socialisation and
gendered power dynamics result in decreased application
of that knowledge in men’s and women’s sexual practices
(Curtin etal., 2011; Nesoff etal., 2016). For heterosexual
women especially, this can include increased sexual risk-
taking such as less condom use, likely due to their partners’
condom refusals and stealthing practices, and decreased self-
assertiveness during sexual encounters, resulting in engag-
ing in activities they are not comfortable doing. Other stud-
ies exploring young people’s sexual health education have
found that knowledge of effective risk prevention strategies
for STIs and pregnancy does not always translate to consist-
ent use of barrier or hormonal methods or confidence in
discussing sex and intimacy (Mason-Jones etal., 2016). In
research on gay and bisexual men, several other factors play
key roles as to whether they engaged in sexual activities
without adequate discussion, negotiation, or use of STI- and
HIV-risk-reducing methods such as condoms or PrEP (Shen
etal., 2022). These factors included focus on pleasure, and
navigating HIV stigma.
Most research on young people has traditionally focused
on understanding sexual communication and consent in
a binary context, categorising scenarios as consensual or
non-consensual (e.g. Groggel etal., 2021; Holmström etal.,
2020). However, there is limited comprehensive interna-
tional research, including none in Australia, on how indi-
viduals integrate best practices into their daily lives. Shift-
ing the focus from establishing sexual consent to examining
how participants navigate scenarios and anticipate others’
responses is crucial. This study emphasises practical appli-
cation, observing how young cisgender heterosexual men
and women in Australia implement their understanding of
sexual communication and consent in addressing challenges
within hypothetical scenarios and real-life encounters. It
does not aim to directly assess the impact of educational
programmes or measure knowledge, behaviours, and atti-
tudes; rather, it explores how general knowledge about these
topics shapes current sexual communication and sexual con-
sent practices.
Methodology
This study is part of a broader Australian project explor-
ing cisgender heterosexual men’s experiences in sex, inti-
macy, and dating. The project involves analysing #MeToo
commentaries (Waling, 2023b, c); interviewing experts in
sexual health, gender violence prevention, and well-being
(Waling etal., 2023a,b); conducting focus groups with
both men and women (the focus here); and interviewing
young cisgender heterosexual men (Waling, 2023a, d). It
employs a combined framework of symbolic interaction-
ism and feminism, emphasising meaning and interpretation
(Liamputtong, 2011).
Our virtual focus group design followed Liamputtong’s
(2011) recommendations. Virtual groups gathered diverse
opinions on sex, dating, and sexual communication, encour-
aging both complementary (sharing experiences) and argu-
mentative (questioning) interactions (Liamputtong, 2011). We
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Sexuality Research and Social Policy
opted for a diverse and constructed design to facilitate dis-
cussions on sensitive subjects such as sex and sexual health,
encouraging various responses, with both complementary and
argumentative exchanges (Liamputtong, 2011). The virtual
approach was prompted by COVID-19’s impact on qualita-
tive research safety and data collection. Focus groups have
proven effective for sex-related research (Waling etal., 2020).
The constructed design reduces agenda setting, encourages
varied perspectives, and alleviates concerns about revealing
private matters (Liamputtong, 2011). The collection of focus
group data can also be rich and nuanced, resulting from group
discussions and interactions where participants engage and
sometimes challenge each other (Liamputtong, 2011).
Method
Ethics approval was granted by La Trobe University’s
Human Research Ethics Committee (HEC20110). Partici-
pants had to identify as cisgender men or women, heterosex-
ual, residing in Australia, having had engaged in dating or
casual sex in the last 5years, and being between the ages of
18 and 35. For each group, we chose six to eight participants
across six groups, a size that fosters diversity and in-depth
discussions effectively (Liamputtong, 2011).
Vignette Development
The focus group made use of vignettes as part of the data
collection. These were carefully considered to ensure accessi-
bility of language, and ability to garner high-quality and rich
data. Vignettes, also known as qualitative research scenarios,
are effective tools for understanding participants’ engage-
ment with a topic (e.g. Barter & Renold, 1999; Tremblay
etal., 2022). Vignettes are useful in facilitating discussions of
sensitive topics (e.g. dating, sex, consent) and the exploration
of diverse perspectives (Bradbury-Jones etal., 2014). Barter
and Renold (1999) and O’Dell etal. (2012), however, caution
researchers about analysis of responses to vignettes, remind-
ing them that there are key differences in how participants
themselves might respond to a situation in comparison to
how they think a situation should be engaged. This consid-
eration of the vignette methodology is highly useful when
reflecting on the sometimes fraught and contentious nature
of navigating sexual encounters, including how individuals
think about, and reflect on, sexual communication and sexual
consent (Darnell, 2020; Hindes, 2022; Matthews, 2020).
As such, we deemed it prudent to use vignettes as part
of the focus group to determine how participants might
respond to or think through potential concerns around
sexual consent and sexual communication. These vignettes
were focused on sexual relations between men and women.
Four vignettes were developed. Two vignettes involved
casual sex/dating, and two vignettes involved long-term
relationships (see Appendix A: Vignettes). Vignettes were
also designed to ensure equal distribution of men and
women instigating sexual activity, or as potential recipients
of a potential sexual consent violation. Following Barter
and Renold’s (1999) approach, we created each vignette
to be purposefully ambiguous, fostering diverse responses
about navigating sexual communication and sexual consent
in practical contexts. The vignettes were based on our own
experiences and common scenarios from sources including
Slate’s “How to Do It” (sex advice column) and Reddit sub-
reddits such as r/dating_advice and r/relationship_advice.
As noted above in the literature review, other studies have
used vignettes to assess participant understandings of what
is and what is not consensual. In this study, we focused
on ensuring vignettes did not have clear correct or incor-
rect answers to better analyse participants’ responses to
characters, situations, and their own lived experiences.
Importantly, we were focused on how participants them-
selves might handle scenarios, how they believed characters
should handle the scenarios, and what discussions emerged
in the process. Trusted colleagues reviewed vignettes for
accessibility and feedback.
Recruitment
Participants were recruited from May to August 2021
for mixed and single-gender focus groups and one-on-
one interviews. One-on-one interviews were conducted
with men (e.g. Waling, 2023a, d), while focus groups
involved both men and women. While our paper primar-
ily discusses focus groups, we recognise the overlap with
interviews due to simultaneous recruitment and shared
methods. This approach was strategic to address chal-
lenges in recruiting cisgender heterosexual men for sen-
sitive topics such as sex and consent (Waling, 2023a).
Recruitment employed Facebook, Instagram, and Reddit
ads, leading participants to an eligibility survey on RED-
Cap. Detailed information was accessible on the project
website, www.m- sex. org. Four rounds of advertising were
necessary, with Facebook being especially effective for
recruitment through sponsored ads on Instagram and
Messenger. The eligibility survey enabled participants
to express interest, addressing questions on gender iden-
tity, sex recorded on birth certificate, sexual orientation,
residence, age, and recent dating or casual sex. Ineligibil-
ity prompted a thank you and explanation, while eligible
participants shared contact details. Through this process,
a total of 76 people (30 men in interviews, and 11 men
and 33 women in focus groups) participated in the study.
Men were invited to one-on-one interviews or mixed-/
single-gender focus groups, while women were invited
to mixed-/single-gender focus groups.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Sexuality Research and Social Policy
Data Collection
In this paper, we are focused on the focus groups; thus, data
collection procedures are described as such. Six virtual
focus groups were conducted between the months of June
2021 and September 2021. Focus groups were conducted
online using Zoom technology. Three of these focus groups
were mixed gender, and three were single gender, women
only. Single-gender women’s groups were offered as some
women do not feel safe in mixed groups, particularly those
who may have experienced sexual violence, and to ensure
the centring of their voices and experience. We did not run
single-gender men’s groups. While they were offered for
similar reasons regarding comfort and safety, men did not
take up this opportunity, and reasons as to why are discussed
in another paper (Waling, 2023a).
i. Focus group preparation
Participants were given the chance to choose their
preferred date and time for the focus group. A week
before the study, an email was sent with focus group
details, a using-Zoom guide, a list of support services,
and guidance on respectful behaviour.
A resource was developed to guide participants
on the sensitive content, emphasising diverse view-
points and respectful interaction. It contained guid-
ance on handling discomfort during the session and
highlighted the research team’s authority to remove
those displaying harmful behaviours. The list of sup-
port services was shared ahead of time and reiterated
at the focus group’s conclusion.
ii. Focus group data collection
Focus groups commenced 15min before the set
start time for equipment checks and accommodat-
ing latecomers. All participants’ screen names were
updated. Before the session, the research team config-
ured Zoom settings to enable direct messaging to hosts
only, disabled screen sharing and annotation, and
locked screen names. A PowerPoint presentation with
a study introduction, agenda, and questions was shared
via screen share. Introductions and casual chat ensued,
clarifying that participation was voluntary, and addi-
tional questions were allowed. The lead author invited
those unheard to contribute. Participants were encour-
aged to voice opinions and use Zoom features such as
raising hands and emoticons.
The focus groups spanned about 2h, with a 5-min
introduction, a 10-min break, and a 5-min conclusion,
audio-recorded via Zoom. They were split into two
50-min segments with four vignettes and seven key
questions. Author 1 facilitated the groups, author 2
took notes, and author 2 messaged author 1 for fol-
low-ups. Author 1 and author 2 revised questions after
group 1 to enhance engagement, proving successful in
subsequent sessions. Each participant had opportuni-
ties to answer, with author 2 prompting those needing
encouragement and acknowledging private contribu-
tions. At the end, participants were thanked, next steps
outlined (study results disclosure, reimbursement, pro-
ject updates), and support services highlighted, with
author 1 available for participant contact after the
focus group. Post group, the research team reviewed
the session, noted insights, and planned adjustments.
Participants received $50 Coles gift vouchers, study
result details, and support service links via email.
Focus groups were conducted by two women.
Research has shown that men are more likely to
perform gender in front of other men than women
(Schrock & Schwalbe, 2009). Research has also shown
that men may be more likely to be more open and
vulnerable when speaking with other women on top-
ics that could incur judgement, such as sex or men-
tal health concerns (Black & Gringart, 2019; Seidler
etal., 2022), and feel safer to express themselves in
mixed-gender groups than in groups with all men
(Waling etal., 2023a).
Participants
Basic demographic details were collected prior to the
focus group in the eligibility survey to preserve the con-
fidentiality and anonymity of participants in the focus
groups. Several participants were not comfortable with
providing additional information about their background
(e.g. race, ethnic or cultural background, housing status,
employment, location) due to the sensitive nature of the
research topic; this was particularly salient for participants
who noted past experiences of sexual violence. As such,
we only report on age, gender, and state or territory.
Table1 provides a basic demographic breakdown of
focus group participant characteristics. Most participants
who took part in focus groups were women (33), which is
due to three of the groups being women only and most men
opting to take part in a one-on-one interview instead (see
Waling, 2023a). Most participants came from Victoria (13)
and New South Wales (10). There was an almost even split
between participants who were between the ages of 18 and
25 (15) and 26 and 30 (19). Participants are denoted with
pseudonyms, age, and gender.
Analysis
Data was analysed using interpretative phenomenologi-
cal analysis (IPA), which pays attention to the world as
it is experienced by human beings within contexts and at
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Sexuality Research and Social Policy
times, rather than in abstract statements about the nature
of the world in general (Smith & Fieldsend, 2021). While
IPA does not adhere to traditional techniques such as data
saturation or cross-referencing codebooks, it still involves
a structured process. Author 1 maintained research diaries
after each focus group to record initial thoughts and valu-
able insights for later data analysis. Transcripts were pro-
fessionally transcribed, and then cross-checked by author
1. For coding the transcripts with specific keywords, the
authors employed qualitative data management software,
NVivo. Subsequently, author 1 manually re-examined the
transcripts, refining the initial codes. Transcripts were then
coded by author 3. Author 1 then examined the coded tran-
scripts, identifying descriptive themes, followed by a metic-
ulous analysis to unearth the underlying tensions within the
data as per IPA. For this paper, attention was paid to how
participants responded to each vignette. Findings were then
written up and cross-checked by authors 2 and 3. All three
authors discussed the findings and agreed upon changes
where necessary.
Findings
In this paper, we explore how participants’ general knowl-
edge and expectations of good sexual communication and
sexual consent practices during sexual encounters translate
into their readings of sexual consent vignettes and their
discussions of their lived experiences of similar situations.
One of the challenges with focus group designs is that they
can often lead to a “group norm” or consensus among par-
ticipants regarding experiences. While the data reported
below suggests some consensus, we highlight differences
where appropriate. Importantly, we note that even if there is
consensus among the group as a potential result of a group
norm, this is still valid in terms of understanding the discus-
sions at large. We are focused on the general question that
participants were asked, “How do you think people navigate
consent?”, with the follow-up prompts, “What should they
be doing? What does this look like (body language)? What
does this sound like (verbal language)?” Table2 provides
a summary of these responses to highlight contemporary
good practices.
Participants articulated a high degree of awareness
around what constituted contemporary good practice when
it comes to navigating sexual consent. This included empha-
sis on having periodic verbal check-ins during encounters,
reading non-verbal body language cues, having both part-
ners (in one-on-one settings) responsible for procuring and
understanding sexual consent, and using direct and open
communication. However, this awareness did not necessarily
translate into their lived experiences, or discussions of the
sexual consent vignettes. Below, we discuss how contradic-
tions emerged that did not correspond with contemporary
good practices. These included (1) decisive power, gender,
and responsibility; (2) universal assumptions yet context
always needed; and (3) should do versus did do.
Decisive Power, Gender, andResponsibility
As discussed above, participants were adamant that respon-
sibility should be on both partners for ensuring direct com-
munication when it came to sexual consent. Yet in conver-
sations surrounding the vignettes, participants began to
articulate discrepancies around these responsibility expec-
tations. While they began discussions that both parties are
responsible for procuring sexual consent, inconsistencies
emerged as to who ultimately held or should hold decisive
power in the sexual situation, and gender played a key role
in not only who was expected to hold power, but also how
someone should manage a situation. While participants were
adamant that all individuals involved in a sexual encoun-
ter needed to have confidence in openly discussing sex and
asserting their wants, needs, and boundaries, this was contra-
dicted in discussions of lived experiences and the vignettes.
For example, in the vignette of Clarissa and Nick (Appen-
dix A: Vignette B) they engage in lengthy conversations
about their sexual wants and limitations prior to an encoun-
ter. However, Nick experiences a sexual consent violation
when Clarissa does something that was not on his list of
limitations. Participants noted that despite lengthy conver-
sations about sexual wants and limitations, Clarissa should
have already been aware of the potentiality that Nick may
be introverted or shy, struggling with potential masculinity
norms, and unable to effectively communicate his needs:
Table 1 Demographic characteristics (N = 44)
Demographic characteristic N = 44
Age
18–25 15
26–30 19
31–35 10
Gender
Cisgender men 11
Cisgender women 33
State or territory
Australian Capital Territory 5
New South Wales 10
Queensland 9
South Australia 4
Tasmania 1
Victoria 13
Western Australia 2
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Sexuality Research and Social Policy
Saanvi (woman, 30, single FG): I feel like Clarissa
should take some action to make sure he’s comfort-
able as well, because if Nick is, like, super shy, then
if it’s an activity that he doesn’t like, he’d just have to
sit with it. I feel like there should be a second layer
of, like, security for him, that Clarissa is also making
sure he’s okay.
Abigail (woman, 26, single FG): if Nick was uncom-
fortable and he didn’t realise until that was happen-
ing, like, it’s not fair to expect him to be vocal about
it, because he might be in shock about it. And that’s
something that, like, a lot of guys have trouble speak-
ing up about that sort of thing because there’s this
pressure on them to be, like, ‘Oh, nothing bothers
me’ sort of thing, like they don’t feel like they can
say, ‘Hey, that makes me uncomfortable’, and that’s
another problem.
Unlike contemporary good practice in which both par-
ties are considered responsible for discussing and initiating
consent conversations, here participants held one party to be
ultimately responsible over the other, and attributed power to
the one who is presumed responsible. As Clarissa commit-
ted the potential violation, she is ultimately responsible for
not only the violation but also for not having done enough
to have avoided it, and for engaging in caretaking of Nick’s
feelings. Importantly, Clarissa as a woman is expected not
only to engage in a level of emotional labour to ensure that
Nick is okay, but also to already have an awareness of Nick’s
emotional state. Meanwhile, Nick’s potential responsibility
for the violation, such as due to not listing the act as a limita-
tion during their initial discussions, is disregarded, along-
side an assumption that he was vulnerable due to shyness/
introversion or masculinity norms, and thus cannot speak up.
This also contradicts the claim that good sexual consent and
sexual communication practices require people to be able to
articulate their needs confidently.
Gender was a strong factor in how decisive power was
also determined. This was particularly apparent in the Mark
and Julia vignette (Appendix A: Vignette A) whereby gen-
der played a vital role regarding who was expected to hold
power. Importantly, it reflected the traditional gendered
expectations of men needing to initiate and direct conversa-
tions about sexual consent, while women were positioned as
sexual gatekeepers (Beres & MacDonald, 2015). Very few
participants felt that since it was Julia who had initially indi-
cated a boundary of not having sex and had invited Mark to
her place, that it was up to her to articulate what she would
be willing to do sexually when she changed her mind:
Table 2 Participant responses on contemporary good consent practices
Contemporary good practice Examples
Both people are responsible for initiating discussions Danny (man, 23): It's like equal responsibility in my eyes
Padmesh(man, 34): I think it's equally on both the parties
Judy(woman, 25): There has to be a conversation, there's no other way
around it
Open, confident, and honest and transparent communication (do not
make assumptions) Stewart(man, 20): I think it's really important you as an individual
that you have the confidence to be able to say how you feel
Padmesh(man, 34): it's really important to communicate and be quite
clear in what we’re feeling
Mabel(woman, 34): always open up with the communication, because
like, that's the only way to do it
Mary(woman, 19): I think open communication is so important […] I
always just check in. […] So I think if someone is emotionally open to
talking about their emotions, then it makes it easier to navigate
Straight forward, simple, and direct process, conversations prior to
engaging in the activity Ying(woman, 23): I think having a conversation about both of you just
saying stop whenever you feel uncomfortable and yeah I think just
communication is really important, just to let each other know that it's
okay to say stop if you feel uncomfortable doing something regardless
Sagar(man, 28): it's better be, have a consent […] Rather than
feel sorry at a later stage, or if I should have said this, no to this at
this particular stage, this shouldn’t have happened with me
Anthony(man, 30): it's an explicit affirmation
Erica(woman, 28): it's verbal, I like to say what I’m thinking and say
where I want to go before I actually make actions
Check ins should happen before, during, and after activities, and par-
ticipants always be willing to fully engage sexually Abigail (woman, 26): Both parties need to be actively engaging and
checking boundaries as you go
Julie(woman, 30): I think about I have these needs and you have those
needs, and I want you to be just as equally satisfied when we do it
together
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Sexuality Research and Social Policy
Anika (woman, 26, single FG): She [Julia] has the
onus on it to just confirm and say that ‘you know, I
mentioned this earlier but, you know, I think things
are going really well’.
Abigail (woman, 26, single FG): I was just going to
say that’s totally fine that she’s changed her mind
about it, but she— it would be better if she was
clearer about her saying that and saying, ‘Hey, I
know I said I didn’t want to do this, but now I would
like to.’
The majority, however, fell back on gendered power
dynamics and gender role expectations, in which partici-
pants maintained that Mark was ultimately responsible for
initiating discussions on sexual consent and checking in
as Julia’s behaviour changed, due to the presumed unequal
decisive positions between them regarding their gender
identities:
Sasha (woman, 29, mixed FG): I feel like if Julia
asks the guy to come over, I feel like, yeah, the guy
would assume that something’s happening, but if she
verbally says that, like, she wants to take things slow,
then he should respect that. And I think, like, [as] a
responsible person, he would have to verbally ask,
just to confirm that she wants to go ahead or not to
go ahead.
Adeline (woman, 20, single FG): For Mark, I think
it would just be really important to respect Julia’s
initial comments and just ask whether or not some
things would be okay – like, ask what she wants to
do, ask if certain things are okay, and just move for-
ward figuring out together.
Participants noted that Julia could be giving “mixed
signals” regarding her interest in sexual activities, refer-
ring to how women are often perceive as being relatively
unreliable when it comes to sexual encounters (Ólafsdottir
& Kjaran, 2019). As a result, they noted that Mark
needed to take responsibility for initiating discussions
on sexual consent.
When participants described themselves as being in
either Mark’s or Julia’s position, they continually came
back to Mark as ultimately holding decisive responsibility
for whether sexual activities continued:
Nate (man, 31, mixed FG): I really think, you know,
like if I put myself in Mark’s place, I would have to
be more rational and more logical and not only think
about myself but think about the emotional and logi-
cal dilemma that Julia is facing. So I think I would’ve
definitely, you know, like, not only once, just I
wouldn’t have just asked her once and just waited
for a yes, I would’ve probably asked her throughout,
you know, the whole time.
Erica (woman, 28, mixed FG): I think he should, either
one of them should speak up and say is this something
that you actually want to do […] So if you actually had
someone stop you and say, ‘Hey, actually do you actu-
ally really want to do this’, that shows a lot of maturity
on their part, and it would make me like them and
respect them more if they did actually stop me, if I was
in Julia’s position.
In the case of Nate, there is an assumption that Julia
will be emotional based on her gender, whereas Mark as a
man will be rational and logical. As a result, Nate assumes
that Mark holds the decisive power. For Erica, this links to
rationality and maturity that is assumed of Mark but not
Julia. As a result, Julia is continuously framed as inherently
vulnerable and needing to be led by Mark/engaged by Mark.
Universal Assumptions YetContext
Always Needed
Participants highlighted competing tensions around what
individuals can or should safely assume when it came to
sexual encounters, while simultaneously expressing across
all vignettes that they always needed more context to deter-
mine the appropriate course of action. While participants
noted that people should not make assumptions and should
openly communicate, this again came through differently
when discussing both lived experiences and the sexual con-
sent vignettes. In these readings, there was an assumption
that partners should be generally aware of what is accept-
able during first and second sexual encounters, drawing from
more universal understandings of “normal” and “unusual”
sexual practices:
Danny (man, 23, mixed FG): I think that you should
generally be aware of whether an action is going to
cause someone distress. It depends on the sexual activ-
ity. Like, you should know what is out of boundaries,
even if it’s not— like, I feel like the boundaries usually
are, like, pretty, I don’t know, not set in stone, obvi-
ously, but, like, you can see what sort of things are
over the line and what sort of things aren’t.
Anika (woman, 26, single FG): I feel like in my
experience most of the first sexual encounters have
often been within the range of normality, of what one
expects, at least in my— with me it’s been very rare,
or in fact never, that someone’s gotten something
into the sexual activity which was an uncommon or,
you know, unusual activity.
Across the focus groups, participants indicated that
there is a general or universal understanding of sexual
activities that are considered “normal” in contrast to those
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Sexuality Research and Social Policy
that would be considered unusual. Such understanding can
be premised in broader discourses in which certain sexual
activities are seen as normal (i.e. sexual positions such
as missionary) while other activities may be deemed as
kinky, taboo, or stigmatised (Rubin, 1984). This results in
expectations in which some sexual activities require prior
discussion while others may not.
Yet in the vignette of the long-term relationship
between Frank and Cassie (Appendix A: Vignette D)
where Frank tried something new with Cassie without her
explicit consent (but she enjoyed it), participants were
contradictory. Some suggested that Frank should have
checked in with Cassie when trying something new:
Jeremy (man, 34, mixed FG): Yeah, I would say the
length of the relationship is not relevant. I think it’s
more that they’ve done something differently, and
Frank should’ve, Frank and Cathy should’ve, had a
frank, pun intended, conversation about it beforehand.
I think communication is fundamental for all ele-
ments of relationships including the sexual element.
Amina(woman, 24, mixed FG): So yeah, I think it’s
just not right to do something without asking your
partner. Like, if I was— if this happened to me, I
would just stop the guy. And I’m like, ‘What are you
doing? Explain yourself.’ I think you should – you
should always ask something like that.
But others noted that the context of their long-term rela-
tionship meant that it was okay and part of healthy sexual
exploration:
Mabel (woman, 34, single FG): I would ask myself,
what [is] the kind of relationship between these two
kinds of people [that they] have together? Maybe we
adapt discussion, previous discussion, maybe they
know each other very well. So, I don’t know. There’s,
there is an option here, because they’ve been together,
like, in a long relationship, and they know each other
better.
Interviewer: [Aaliyah], what were you going to say?
Aaliyah (woman, 28, single FG): Yeah, I was going
to say something similar. So, they’ve been together
for several years. So, it kind of made me think back
to a relationship when I was with someone for a few
years. Once you get into a bit of routine, sometimes
it’s nice when your partner just surprises you with
something new.
Here, participants highlight that notions of novelty and
excitement are permissible within the context of a pre-
established sexual and/or romantic relationship, but only
within a particular set of normative ideas about what is
universally acceptable.
However, these unspoken assumptions conflicted with
participants consistently expressing the need for additional
context to accurately evaluate each scenario. They empha-
sised the importance of having more information about
character backgrounds and circumstances, as this informa-
tion was considered crucial for determining the appropriate
course of action, something that was also noted in Willis and
Jozkowski (2022). This requirement for context also aligned
with the participants’ personal experiences. Managing sex-
ual consent was perceived as contextual and dependent on
various factors that may or may not be known. As detailed in
the methodology, vignettes were intentionally crafted to be
ambiguous to mirror real-life experiences more accurately,
wherein full awareness of an individual’s circumstances may
not always be feasible.
For example, in the case of Mark and Julia, participants
wanted to know more about whether Julia could have been
a victim/survivor of sexual violence and if that could shape
her behaviour, and exactly how much Mark and Julia may
have had to drink:
Avery (woman, 33, single FG): It could be that we
don’t know Julia, so she could have a history of sexual
trauma, which means that she thinks any relationship
or something that this is a normal way to behave, and
she has normalised it to a point where this is how she’ll
do something regardless.
Carley (woman, 34, mixed FG): Yeah, I would also
[want to know] how many drinks Julia took that night,
in that case if I was Julia, I would appreciate the guy,
like, stop advancing. But if I’m, like, I’m just happy,
like a little bit tipsy, like yeah, I guess it would be my
decision to go forward.
Abigail (woman, 26, single FG): There’s the outlier of
it being vague that they’ve gone for drinks, so I think
that impacts it too.
For Avery, the unknown history of Julia could play a
further factor in whether she may be consenting to sexual
activity, which would then place further responsibility onto
Mark for managing sexual communication and consent.
For Carley and Abigail, the level of alcohol intake would
determine whether Julia would go further. In these cases,
the way participants could determine “good practice” was
highly dependent on a variety of unknown variables within
the scenario.
For Frank and Cassie, participants noted that the dynamic
of the couple beyond their relationship status was crucial in
determining whether Frank did something wrong:
Sasha (woman, 29, mixed FG): I think it’s really
depending on the dynamic of the couple, yeah, and
how new is this activity from what they have normally
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Sexuality Research and Social Policy
done. Because some couples could be very adventur-
ous and maybe they like surprises, so it just depends.
The sexual activity in question was also an important
factor, where participants expressed that the scenario was
too vague due to the lack of information about what the
activity was:
Danny (man, 23, mixed FG): I think it’s really impor-
tant to know what it is.
Interviewer: Well I don’t have any, it’s about a new
sexual activity
Danny (man, 23, mixed FG): It’s just like really vague,
like, it depends on the— because I don’t want to say
explicitly if that’s not what we’re doing, but it depends
on the level of newness.
Nate (man, 31, mixed FG): I think if it’s not too
extreme, not too hurtful, I think there is no reason to,
you know, like sort of spoil the surprise, as long as it
is within some sort of boundaries that’s already been
maintained by the two.
Lenore (woman, 28, single FG): It would really depend
on what he tried, to be honest, like if he’s flipped me
around and chucked me into a new position, like, yeah,
go for it. If he’s slapped me across the face in the mid-
dle of sex without clearing that first, no. It would com-
pletely depend on what it was and the way that he goes
about doing it.
As with the discussion of boundaries, participants
expressed that if a new activity was within some predeter-
mined notion of normality (i.e. a different sexual position),
it was fine to do. Importantly, the context of the activity
determined whether Frank was in the wrong for not asking.
These uncertainties were echoed with Clarissa and Nick
around whether Clarissa stopped in time, and if Nick was
clear enough in his communication:
Lenore (woman, 28, single FG): We’re also assum-
ing here that when Nick became distressed Clarissa
stopped. If she didn’t stop, if she continued, then yes,
it is a consent violation.
Anika (woman, 26, single FG): I was just going to say
that, that it depends on when Clarissa stopped […] But
yes, then it would be a consent violation if she didn’t
stop when Nick expressed distress.
Danny (man, 23, mixed FG): It doesn’t say exactly
what happened and, like, did Nick as soon as it
started happening, did he say no and then she
stopped, or is it more like she did the thing and
then he decided not to say anything. Because I feel
like, generally speaking, you would know if it starts
happening to him, he should say no. If you have
that, I’m not saying they should. I don’t know, it
all depends.
In these discussions, context was needed to determine an
appropriate course of action regarding the vignettes. Such con-
text was complex and varied, making it difficult for partici-
pants to reach a consensus as to what to do with each situation.
Should Do Versus Did Do
While participants were aware of contemporary good prac-
tices on sexual communication and consent, this was not
necessarily what they did during sexual encounters. Rather,
participants expressed that good practices of sexual commu-
nication were hindrances to the enjoyment of encounters and
did not necessarily accommodate the fluidity of sex. In the
case of Mark and Julia (Appendix A: Vignette A), partici-
pants articulated that while they knew best practice, they had
been in a similar situation in which they did the opposite:
Lenore (woman, 28, single FG): Sometimes, like,
a conversation can almost kill the vibe, like if that
moment is, like, really hot and passionate and you’re
giving them all the signals and they’re giving you all
the signals, and then he was like, ‘So I want to just
check in with you for a second’, I would be like, ‘Dude,
come on, like, let’s just do the thing.’
Alice (woman, 25, single FG): I would just like to add
in there that in my personal experience there’s been
situations where it feels like you know everything’s
going well, not necessarily perfect, but everything’s
going well and we’re hitting it off, and then it moves
into the bedroom and things just seem to flow, and I
feel comfortable not having to necessarily overtly have
that conversation then and there with this situation.
Despite this, however, participants also described when things
did not go in that direction, and where engaging good consent
practices had created further issues in their sexual situations:
Padmesh (man, 34, mixed FG): Coming from a man’s
perspective, it’s kind of like being on thin ice – you’re
not really sure what to say, and it doesn’t lead into an
argument or a fight, because there have been certain
situations where I have asked, ‘This is happening, so
what do you want me to do’, and maybe I shouldn’t
have asked, I should’ve just understood that it’s alright,
but I was just being a gentleman, so to speak, ‘Oh, do
you think it’s a bad idea’, and then it just kind of goes
away from it. So I’ve realised that just you know keep-
ing shut is a pretty good option.
Jeremy (man, 34, mixed FG): Absolutely, I’m some-
one, like the previous speakers, I’m someone who
believes in, you know, affirmative consent, not just
taking your clothes off so that magically means ‘yes,
I’m keen for it’. I’ve been in a situation where I’ve
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Sexuality Research and Social Policy
regularly asked someone are they having a good
time, you know, ‘is this okay’, ‘is this okay’, and be
told, ‘No, you’ve ruined the moment’, which I found
quite perplexing as someone who believes strongly
in making sure there’s always consent.
Here, participants highlighted prioritising the sexual
outcome over engaging good sexual consent and sexual
communication practices.
These contradictions were echoed in conversations con-
cerning the vignette of Lucas and Kathy (Appendix A:
Vignette C), where Kathy feels guilty about wanting sex
more frequently and Lucas obliging to her request. Some
participants indicated that it was ultimately Kathy’s issue
for wanting more sex, and that it was up to her to solve
the problem, which included adhering to the wishes of the
partner who wanted it less:
Nate (man, 31, mixed FG): If you really like the
person, then you should, like— within two people
[when] there is disagreement, we should always go
with the one who’s wanting the lower end. So for
example if you really, if Kathy really wants to have a
long-term relationship with Lucas, probably be with
him forever, then because Lucas is on the lower end,
like he just wants it once or twice, so Kathy needs
to compromise.
Julie (woman, 30, single FG): I couldn’t continue to
engage in sex with Lucas if he wasn’t down as well.
So at the end of the day for me it is a Kathy problem.
In these discussions, there is a stigmatising of a higher
sex drive, with the one wanting it more having to compro-
mise with accepting less. Yet while participants highlighted
this, others noted lived experiences of this situation that did
not play out in this way, whereby they did engage in sex
more frequently to please a partner’s higher sex drive:
Slater (man, 23, mixed FG): I mean, I kind of have
personal first-hand experience of this one where I was
okay with maybe, like, twice a week, at most three
times a week, but she was, she said like she would
prefer it every day if she could. And there was a mis-
match of libido, I suppose, at the time. And I suppose
the way of navigating it we did was that even if I wasn’t
in the mood to have stuff done to me, I was okay, like,
doing stuff to her.
Mary(woman, 19, mixed FG): I know I deal with
chronic fatigue but I’m in the age group where every-
one’s sort of on a high, and I’m like, you know, maybe
I can help, and I’m happy to help in ways where I
might not be at a full energy capacity.
In these responses, discrepancies emerged in which
good practice calls for all individuals involved in a sexual
encounter to be enthusiastic, whereas in these examples,
sexual interest was ambivalent or unwanted, but partici-
pants engaged in activities to support their partners’ needs.
Crucially, participants underscored the significance of the
relationship, suggesting that they might not derive imme-
diate satisfaction from the sexual interaction, but they do
so within the larger framework of the relationship. Conse-
quently, consent for sexual encounters was not considered in
isolation but is assessed within the entirety of the relation-
ship dynamic.
Discussion
The findings suggest that participants had adequate knowl-
edge of good practices for sexual communication and con-
sent, but this knowledge did not always align with their cur-
rent experiences in sexual encounters or their perceptions
of how characters in the vignettes navigate such situations.
Gender socialisation and gendered power dynamics con-
tinue to play significant roles in how participants navigate
encounters for themselves or believe others should. As a
result, responsibility for procuring sexual consent or initiat-
ing conversations about consent continues to rest on men,
while women continue to be framed as providers of consent
or gatekeepers to sexual activity. This is compounded with
notions that men are more likely to be rational and logical
in sexual situations than women, and continues to frame
women as lacking agency, more likely to be vulnerable
to sexual consent violations, and less reliable in terms of
their capacity to confidently say yes or no. Alongside this,
participants noted differences in how the characters should
respond, whereby the men in scenarios were expected to
check in with a more basic “is this okay” while women were
expected to not only manage their own and their partners’
feelings but be aware of these feelings prior to encounters.
While a focus on gender equity is an important consid-
eration, especially concerning the socialisation that occurs
around sex and often leaves women to experience sexual
consent violations and other forms of violence, there is a
double bind. Men continue to be framed as having, or need-
ing to hold, power in sexual situations (Jeffrey, 2022). In
this awareness of power and its impact on women, it may
certainly support more pleasurable sexual encounters that
focus on women’s needs and desires. However, this also
means that power continues to remain in men’s hands, reaf-
firming as opposed to challenging the gendered dynamics
within sexual situations (Gilbert, 2018). This then means
that women either continue to be framed as lacking agency
and capacity to negotiate sexual situations or are inher-
ently vulnerable in sexual scenarios. In shifting to a mind-
set in which both parties are equally responsible for sexual
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Sexuality Research and Social Policy
communication and sexual consent, this still leaves the
question of who is responsible for initiating the first and/or
subsequent conversations. If shifted to women as responsi-
ble for initiating, there are several important considerations
that make this difficult. First, it adds to the already quite
overloaded forms of mental and emotional labour placed
upon women apparent in several other spaces when it comes
to relationship dynamics with men (i.e. the household and
childrearing; see Santhosh etal., 2020). Second, it assumes
that women have a strong awareness of what they want and
desire in sexual situations, which as Angel (2021) and others
have noted, is often not the case due to broader stigmatising
narratives around women’s sexuality. Third, it also assumes
a level of safety that does not necessarily exist, considering
that many women have tried to negotiate sexual communica-
tion and sexual consent, only to be assaulted regardless of
these attempts (Jeffrey, 2022).
Alongside the complexities of gender, findings from this
research also noted competing tensions between what par-
ticipants felt were appropriate assumptions that could be
made in given situations against always needing more con-
text about vignette situations. Participants noted “universal
knowns” that should be engaged when entering sexual situ-
ations, particularly around what might be considered nor-
mative or unusual sexual activities. Yet universal meanings
and understandings can be varied due to a host of factors
including language differences, upbringing, education, and
experiences. Even sexual activities and how they look or feel
may vary depending on the person. This is in stark contrast
to participants expressing a need for much more information
about each vignette, communicating that making assump-
tions was not adequate.
This also was apparent in their lived experiences, in
which it became obvious that knowledge of good prac-
tice does not necessarily equate to actual practice. Instead,
participants highlighted a diverse range of variables that
resulted in different decisions when they themselves expe-
rienced similar situations. For some, this meant that mul-
tiple similar situations had vastly different outcomes due
to those different variables. It can be extremely difficult or
potentially impossible to account for all potential factors and
variables in a person’s life experience that can be readily
captured in a vignette. This has implications for supporting
education and health promotion interventions around how
to navigate sexual communication and sexual consent, as
discussed below.
The gendered make-up of the focus groups may result
in different ways of engaging in the discussion. For exam-
ple, participants in the single-gender focus groups with
all women may have felt safer to express themselves and
their experiences in comparison to women in mixed-gender
groups where men were present. Another consideration is
that the men in the focus groups with women may have
responded differently in an all-men group, or may have
purposely said certain things that would be in alignment
with women’s arguments and viewpoints as opposed to their
own thoughts and beliefs. While this could be the case, it
is important to note that despite this, the findings highlight
that participants understand and are able to articulate what
good sexual consent practices are meant to look like, and
recognise where they may or may not enact it.
Social Policy andPractice Implications
Starting from April 2022, the Australian educational system
has taken significant steps to incorporate comprehensive
sexual consent education into both primary and secondary
school curricula. This move was prompted by longstanding
instances where cisgender women have encountered various
forms of consent-related challenges and sexual violence, even
within the confines of primary and secondary educational
institutions. Australia has implemented various national strat-
egies and frameworks, such as the National Men’s Health
Strategy (2020–2030), the National Women’s Health Strat-
egy (2020–2030), the National Plan to End Violence against
Women and Children (2022–2032), and the Fourth National
STI Strategy (2018–2022), all of which emphasise promoting
healthy and equitable gender relationships.
Regarding the ongoing debate over verbal versus non-verbal
consent, the concept of affirmative consent has gained
|prominence in Australia, notably integrated into state-
based laws and regulations, exemplified in North (2023).
For instance, Victoria underwent a significant legal reform
in March 2021, known as the Sexual Offences and Other
Matters Act (Burgin, 2019), shifting from defining sexual
assault based on the absence of a “no” to requiring a clear
and enthusiastic “yes” throughout a sexual encounter. These
changes aim to improve responses to sexual violence, bolster
support for victims/survivors, and foster a cultural environ-
ment centred around enthusiastic and affirmative consent.
The findings of this research do not suggest a lack of
understanding about what constitutes good sexual com-
munication or sexual consent practices. Rather, they show
that application of that knowledge is not neatly applied in
real-world sexual situations. Sexual scenarios can be quite
unique and individual, and much context is required to make
an evaluation of whether those involved enacted sexual con-
sent practices that could minimise harm. Participants were
knowledgeable about what constitutes contemporary good
practice, but when presented with a vignette, they required
unknown details to make their decisions about what the
characters should do, reflected different practices regard-
ing what they would do or have done, or fell back on long-
standing gendered expectations. This is not to suggest that
education about sexual communication and sexual consent
is not necessary or failing. Rather, there is a significant gap
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Sexuality Research and Social Policy
between knowledge and practical application of that knowl-
edge. This echoes concerns about sexual health promotion
and education, whereby knowledge is not translating into
practice (Arlinghaus & Johnston, 2018). While we do not
have an answer on how to neatly solve this complex issue,
we do have three suggestions on ways to get closer to bridg-
ing that gap.
We suggest that education and health promotion initia-
tives are developed based on a clear understanding of how
existing education in this area is used and translates into
practice. Advocating for education without this understand-
ing may not be as effective an endeavour as intended. This
is particularly important considering that relationships and
sexuality education (RSE) continues to be hotly contested
and challenged across Australia, with pushes for compre-
hensive RSE often experiencing backlash, alongside signifi-
cant difficulties in consistent implementation due to lack of
training or resourcing (Quinlivan, 2018). Being able to teach
effective sexual communication and sexual consent also, as
we argue, requires more engagement with concepts such as
how to have sex and discussions of pleasure, topics that are
generally considered taboo or inappropriate (Darnell, 2020).
This would require substantial political and social support.
Second, we suggest that vignettes should be used often in
education to support learning activities. In the case of sexual
communication and sexual consent, we note that a consid-
eration of vignettes as a tool for exploring the complexity of
sexual relations could be useful alongside their use in explor-
ing whether a scenario is consensual. We advocate for the use
of vignettes that unpacks ambiguities within sexual situations
and supports the development of emotional and communi-
cational skills to navigate those uncertainties. They should
focus on not just whether a situation is indicative of consent,
or what approach is right or wrong, but rather, what the char-
acters could potentially do to navigate the uncertain situation
at hand, what might be some unknown considerations that
pop up (i.e. the variables that could be at play), and what
challenges may arise in attempting to engage good practice.
Our last suggestion, which broaches a much larger and
more complex issue, is that a broader, whole-of-society
approach to thinking about sexual communication and
sexual consent is needed. As noted earlier, the increase in
sexual communication and sexual consent education has
not necessarily translated into fewer incidents of sexual
violence (Jeffrey, 2022; Pascoe, 2022). Other studies have
found that for men in particular, awareness of what con-
stitutes sexual consent is quite good, suggesting that the
issue is not necessarily a lack of education about what
sexual consent is so much as it is about entitlement to
women’s bodies, and broader denigration of women in
society across a variety of spaces (i.e. reproductive health)
that continues to support men in perpetuating sexual vio-
lence (Beres etal., 2019). Alongside this, research has
suggested that the lack of social, legal, and political sup-
port for women to engage in their sexuality safely, along-
side the significant shaming and stigmatising that occurs
if they do, means that it can be remarkably challenging for
women to understand, and then effectively communicate,
what they may want or desire sexually (Angel, 2021).
The reality is that everyday culture alongside larger
social, political, and legal institutions continues, in a
variety of ways, to devalue and/or oppress women (e.g.
denial of bodily autonomy, slut-shaming, and misogyny
and sexism in workplace environments among many oth-
ers), which certainly has a flow-on effect for heterosexual
relations. In the gendered violence prevention space, a
whole-of-society approach has been deemed necessary to
effectively address family, domestic, and intimate part-
ner violence, and gendered transformative approaches are
recognised as being needed at the forefront (Casey etal.,
2018). This needs to be echoed in education and health
promotion on sexual communication and sexual consent.
Conclusion
We note that the efficacy of educational and health promo-
tion approaches to topics such as sexual communication
and sexual consent may be limited. That is, teaching young
people how to say yes and no, how to read verbal and
non-verbal cues, and what is or is not consensual cannot
be relied on to solve or work towards solving the issue of
sexual consent violations and associated sexual violence.
This is not to suggest that these forms of knowledge are
not helpful; they certainly are. The efficacy of educational
and health promotion approaches to topics such as sex-
ual consent presumes that sexual encounters are always
rational, linear, and two-dimensional, and follow simple
scripts. But as our research and other research have already
suggested, this is often not the case. Sexual encounters
can include complex layers of emotions and experiences,
shaped by culture, religion, and other intersecting factors,
and can be embedded with a mix of shame, pleasure, joy,
uncertainty, fear, and anxiety (Angelides, 2019). People
may make decisions based on a combination of known and
unknown variables in their encounters. Having a deeper
understanding of how these decisions are made is neces-
sary to develop education and other resources that can sup-
port individuals in navigating complex sexual situations.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Sexuality Research and Social Policy
Appendix A: Vignettes
Vignette A: Julia andMark
Julia and Mark met for drinks for a first date and hit it
off. They’ve gone back to Julia’s place. Julia tells Mark
she wants to take things slow and will not be having
sex with him that evening. They proceed to make out,
and Julia begins to take off layers of her clothing, with
Mark following suit. Mark is uncertain as to whether to
proceed to engage in sexual activity with Julia. Equally,
Julia is unsure how to indicate interest in sexual activi-
ties when she previous said she did not want to have
sex.
Questions
1) How should Mark and Julia handle this situation?
2) How might you handle this situation?
Vignette B: Clarissa andNick
Clarissa and Nick meet for coffee. They are attracted
to each other and decide on their next meeting they’ll
engage in sexual activity. They spend a few days prior
to this event discussing sexual health, contraceptive
use, and sexual wants and desires, as well as bounda-
ries and limitations. When they engage in sexual activ-
ity, Clarissa performs an action on Nick that causes
him distress. However, Nick did not list this action as a
limitation in their earlier discussions. Both parties are
left feeling confused, upset, and frustrated by what has
happened.
Questions
3) Is this a consent violation?
4) Is someone in the wrong?
5) How might you have handle this situation?
Vignette C: Lucas andKathy
Lucas and Kathy have been in a long-term relation-
ship for three years. Kathy prefers to have sex 3–4
times a week, while Lucas is happy with only once
or twice. Kathy often feels neglected sexually in the
relationship and finds her sexual needs are not being
met. Sometimes Lucas engages in sexual activity with
Kathy even though he’s not in the mood, but is happy
to assist her in meeting her sexual needs. Kathy wor-
ries that she is pressuring Lucas and not respecting
his boundaries.
Questions
1) Do you think it’s okay for Lucas to help Kathy in this
way if he’s not interested?
2) How might you handle this situation?
Vignette D: Frank andCassie
Frank and Cassie have been together for a number of
years, and have an established sexual routine. One day,
Frank decides to try something new with Cassie with-
out first asking for her permission to do so. Cassie is
surprised by this new activity but thoroughly enjoyed
herself.
Questions
1) Do you think it’s okay that Frank did this? Should he had
asked Cassie first?
2) How might you handle this situation?
Author Contribution This paper, and the study on which it is based,
was designed and developed by Andrea Waling, the first author of this
work. Material preparation, literature review, and data collection were
performed by Andrea Waling and Alexandra James. Analysis of the
data and writing up of the discussion and results were done by Andrea
Waling, Alexandra James, and Lily Moor.
Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and
its Member Institutions This work is funded by the Australian Research
Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DE200101539).
Availability of Data and Material Due to the nature of this research,
participants in this study did not agree for their full transcript data to
be shared publicly, so supporting data is not available.
Declarations
Ethics Approval This research was conducted with the La Trobe Uni-
versity’s Human Research Ethics Committee (HEC20110) approval as
it involves human participants.
Consent to Participate Participants provided informed written consent
to participate in this study.
Consent for Publication Participants provided informed written con-
sent to allow their de-identified data to appear in publications.
Conflict of Interest The authors declare no competing interests.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Sexuality Research and Social Policy
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Albury, K. (2002). Yes means yes: Getting explicit about heterosex.
Allen & Unwin.
Albury, K. (2018). Heterosexual casual sex: From free love to Tinder.
In C. Smith, F. Attwood, & B. McNair (Eds.), The Routledge
companion to media, sex and sexuality (pp. 91–91). Routledge.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 4324/ 97813 15168 302
Allen, L. (2006). “Looking at the real thing” : Young men, por-
nography, and sexuality education. Discourse: Studies in the
Cultural Politics of Education, 27(1), 69–83. https:// doi. org/
10. 1080/ 01596 30050 05103 02
Angel, K. (2021). Tomorrow sex will be good again: Women and
desire in the age of consent. Verso.
Angelides, S. (2019). The fear of child sexuality: Young people, sex,
and agency. University of Chicago Press.
Arlinghaus, K. R., & Johnston, C. A. (2018). Advocating for behaviour
change with education. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine,
12(2), 113–116. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 15598 27617 745479
Barter, C., & Renold, E. (1999). The use of vignettes in qualitative
research. Social Research Update, 25(9), 1–6. https:// sru. soc. sur-
rey. ac. uk/ SRU25. html
Bauer, R. (2021). Queering consent: Negotiating critical consent in
les-bi-trans-queer BDSM contexts. Sexualities, 24(5–6), 767–783.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 13634 60720 973902
Benoit, A. A., & Ronis, S. T. (2022). A qualitative examination of with-
drawing sexual consent, sexual compliance, and young women’s
role as sexual gatekeepers. International Journal of Sexual Health,
34(4), 577–592. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 19317 611. 2022. 20893 12
Beres, M. A. (2007a). Sexual consent to heterosexual casual sex among
young adults living in Jasper [Doctoral thesis, University of
Alberta]. ERA. https:// doi. org/ 10. 7939/ r3- 7qe2- g465
Beres, M. A. (2007b). ‘Spontaneous’ sexual consent: An analysis of
sexual consent literature. Feminism & Psychology, 17(1), 93–108.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 09593 53507 072914
Beres, M. A. (2014). Rethinking the concept of consent for anti-sexual
violence activism and education. Feminism & Psychology, 24(3),
373–389. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 09593 53514 539652
Beres, M. (2020). Perspectives of rape-prevention educators on the role
of consent in sexual violence prevention. Sex Education, 20(2),
227–238. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14681 811. 2019. 16217 44
Beres, M. A., & Farvid, P. (2010). Sexual ethics and young women’s
accounts of heterosexual casual sex. Sexualities, 13(3), 377–393.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 13634 60709 363136
Beres, M. A., & MacDonald, J. E. C. (2015). Talking about sexual
consent. Australian Feminist Studies, 30(86), 418–432. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 08164 649. 2016. 11586 92
Beres, M. A., Terry, G., Senn, C. Y., & Ross, L. K. (2019). Account-
ing for men’s refusal of heterosex: A story-completion study
with young adults. The Journal of Sex Research, 56(1), 127–136.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00224 499. 2017. 13999 78
Black, S. C., & Gringart, E. (2019). The relationship between clients’
preferences of therapists’ sex and mental health support seeking:
An exploratory study. Australian Psychologist, 54(4), 322–335.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ ap. 12370
Bradbury-Jones, C., Taylor, J., & Herber, O. R. (2014). Vignette devel-
opment and administration: A framework for protecting research
participants. International Journal of Social Research Method-
ology, 17(4), 427–440. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13645 579. 2012.
750833
Brady, G., Lowe, P., Brown, G., Osmond, J., & Newman, M. (2018).
‘All in all it is just a judgement call’: Issues surrounding sexual
consent in young people’s heterosexual encounters. Journal of
Youth Studies, 21(1), 35–50. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13676 261.
2017. 13434 61
Burgin, R. (2019). Persistent narratives of force and resistance: Affirm-
ative consent as law reform. The British Journal of Criminology,
59(2), 296–314. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ bjc/ azy043
Burton, O., Rawstorne, P., Watchirs-Smith, L., Nathan, S., & Carter, A.
(2023). Teaching sexual consent to young people in education set-
tings: A narrative systematic review. Sex Education, 23(1), 18–34.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14681 811. 2021. 20186 76
Calderón-Sandoval, O., Villegas-Simón, I., & Medina-Bravo, P. (2023).
Debating sexual consent in the teen series The Hockey Girls:
Reactions of Instagram audiences. Advance online publication.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14681 811. 2023. 22226 71
Carmody, M. (2003). Sexual ethics and violence prevention. Social
& Legal Studies, 12(2), 199–216. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/
09646 63903 01200 2003
Carmody, M., & Ovenden, G. (2013). Putting ethical sex into prac-
tice: Sexual negotiation, gender and citizenship in the lives of
young women and men. Journal of Youth Studies, 16(6), 792–807.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13676 261. 2013. 763916
Casey, E., Carlson, J., Two Bulls, S., & Yager, A. (2018). Gender trans-
formative approaches to engaging men in gender-based violence
prevention: A review and conceptual model. Trauma, Violence, &
Abuse, 19(2), 231–246. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 15248 38016 650191
Crabbe, M., & Flood, M. (2021). School-based education to address
pornography’s influence on young people: A proposed practice
framework. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 16(1),
1–37. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 15546 128. 2020. 18567 44
Curtin, N., Ward, L. M., Merriwether, A., & Caruthers, A. (2011).
Femininity ideology and sexual health in young women: A focus
on sexual knowledge, embodiment, and agency. International
Journal of Sexual Health, 23(1), 48–62. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/
19317 611. 2010. 524694
Darden, M. C., Ehman, A. C., Lair, E. C., & Gross, A. M. (2019).
Sexual compliance: Examining the relationships among sexual
want, sexual consent, and sexual assertiveness. Sexuality & Cul-
ture, 23(1), 220–235. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12119- 018- 9551-1
Darnell, C. (2020). Consent lies destroy lives: Pleasure as the sweet-
est taboo. In B. Fileborn & R. Loney-Howes (Eds.), MeToo and
the politics of social change (pp. 253–266). Palgrave MacMillan.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-3- 030- 15213-0_ 16
Dougherty, T. (2015). Yes means yes: Consent as communication. Phi-
losophy & Public Affairs, 43(3), 224–253. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/
papa. 12059
Ezer, P., Jones, T., Fisher, C., & Power, J. (2019). A critical discourse
analysis of sexuality education in the Australian curriculum. Sex
Education, 19(5), 551–567. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14681 811.
2018. 15537 09
Fenner, L. (2017). Sexual consent as a scientific subject: A literature
review. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 12(4), 451–471.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 15546 128. 2017. 13936 46
Fowler, L. R., Schoen, L., Smith, H. S., & Morain, S. R. (2021).
Sex education on TikTok: A content analysis of themes. Health
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Sexuality Research and Social Policy
Promotion Practice, 23(5), 739–742. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/
15248 39921 10315 36
Gilbert, J. (2018). Contesting consent in sex education. Sex Education,
18(3), 268–279. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14681 811. 2017. 13934 07
Groggel, A., Burdick, M., & Barraza, A. (2021). She left the party: Col-
lege students’ meanings of sexual consent. Violence against Women,
27(6–7), 766–789. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10778 01220 911462
Gronert, N. M. (2019). Law, campus policy, social movements, and
sexual violence: Where do we stand in the #MeToo movement?
Sociology Compass, 13(6), e12694. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ soc4.
12694
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
Hardesty, M., Young, S. R., McKinnon, A. M., Merriwether, A.,
Mattson, R. E., & Massey, S. G. (2022). Indiscrete: How typi-
cal college student sexual behavior troubles affirmative con-
sent’s demand for clear communication. Sexuality Research
and Social Policy, 19(3), 1114–1129. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s13178- 021- 00611-9
Hills, P. J., Pleva, M., Seib, E., & Cole, T. (2021). Understanding how
university students use perceptions of consent, wantedness, and
pleasure in labeling rape. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50(1),
247–262. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10508- 020- 01772-1
Hindes, S. (2022). Beyond consent. In L. Allen & M. L. Rasmussen
(Eds.), The Palgrave encyclopedia of sexuality education (pp.
1–9). Palgrave Macmillan. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-3- 030-
95352-2_ 69-1
Holmström, C., Plantin, L., & Elmerstig, E. (2020). Complexities of
sexual consent: Young people’s reasoning in a Swedish context.
Psychology & Sexuality, 11(4), 342–357. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/
19419 899. 2020. 17691 63
Humphreys, T. (2007). Perceptions of sexual consent: The impact of
relationship history and gender. The Journal of Sex Research,
44(4), 307–315. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00224 49070 15867 06
Hust, S. J. T., Marett, E. G., Ren, C., Adams, P. M., Willoughby, J. F., Lei,
M., Ran, W., & Norman, C. (2014). Establishing and adhering to
sexual consent: The association between reading magazines and col-
lege students’ sexual consent negotiation. Journal of Sex Research,
51(3), 280–290. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00224 499. 2012. 727914
Hust, S. J. T., Rodgers, K. B., & Bayly, B. (2017). Scripting sexual
consent: Internalised traditional sexual scripts and sexual consent
expectancies among college students. Family Relations: An Inter-
disciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 66(1), 197–210.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ fare. 12230
Jeffrey, N. K. (2022). Is consent enough? Sexualities. Advance online
publication. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 13634 60722 10967 60
Johnson, B., Harrison, L., & Ollis, D. (2020). Resisting ethics over-
regulation in research into sexuality and relationships educa-
tion: Insights from an Australian study. The Australian Edu-
cational Researcher, 47(5), 741–757. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s13384- 019- 00373-9
Jones, A. C., Robinson, W. D., & Seedall, R. B. (2018). The role of
sexual communication in couples’ sexual outcomes: A dyadic path
analysis. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 44(4), 606–623.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jmft. 12282
Jozkowski, K. N. (2015). Beyond the dyad: An assessment of sexual
assault prevention education focused on social determinants of
sexual assault among college students. Violence against Women,
21(7), 848–874. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10778 01215 584069
Jozkowski, K. N., Marcantonio, T. L., & Hunt, M. E. (2017). Col-
lege students’ sexual consent communication and perceptions of
sexual double standards: A qualitative investigation. Perspectives
on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 49(4), 237–244. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1363/ psrh. 12041
Lehmiller, J. J., VanderDrift, L. E., & Kelly, J. R. (2014). Sexual com-
munication, satisfaction, and condom use behavior in friends with
benefits and romantic partners. The Journal of Sex Research,
51(1), 74–85. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00224 499. 2012. 719167
Liamputtong, P. (2011). Focus group methodology: Principles and prac-
tice. Sage Publications. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4135/ 97814 73957 657
Lofgreen, A. M., Mattson, R. E., Wagner, S. A., Ortiz, E. G., &
Johnson, M. D. (2021). Situational and dispositional determi-
nants of college men’s perception of women’s sexual desire
and consent to sex: A factorial vignette analysis. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 36(1–2), 1064–1097. https:// doi. org/
10. 1177/ 08862 60517 738777
Mason-Jones, A. J., Sinclair, D., Mathews, C., Kagee, A., Hillman, A.,
& Lombard, C. (2016). School-based interventions for preventing
HIV, sexually transmitted infections, and pregnancy in adoles-
cents. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1002/ 14651 858. CD006 417. pub3
Matthews, H. (2020). MeToo as sex panic. In B. Fileborn & R. Loney-
Howes (Eds.), #MeToo and the politics of social change (pp.
267–284). Palgrave Macmillan. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-3-
030- 15213-0_ 17
Meacham, S. (2022). What mandatory consent education will look
like in Australian schools. 9News. https:// www. 9news. com.
au/ natio nal/ manda tory- conse nt- educa tion- rolled- out- in- all-
austr alian- schoo ls- histo ry- of- sex- educa tion- expla iner/ 6655e 9d2-
3dd5- 400d- 9b6a- 67b89 debb8 53
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. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00224 499.
2016. 11466 51
Nesoff, E. D., Dunkle, K., & Lang, D. (2016). The impact of condom
use negotiation self-efficacy and partnership patterns on consistent
condom use among college-educated women. Health Education &
Behaviour, 43(1), 61–67. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10901 98115 596168
North, A. (2023). Legislating consent in sexual relations: How signifi-
cant is the move to affirmative consent? Alternative Law Journal,
48(1), 5–10. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10379 69X22 11352 02
O’Byrne, R., Rapley, M., & Hansen, S. (2006). ‘You couldn’t say
“no”, could you?’: Young men’s understanding of sexual refusal.
Feminism & Psychology, 16(2), 133–154. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/
0959- 35350 60629 70
O’Dell, L., Crafter, S., de Abreu, G., & Cline, T. (2012). The problem
of interpretation in vignette methodology in research with young
people. Qualitative Research, 12(6), 702–714. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1177/ 14687 94112 439003
Ólafsdottir, K., & Kjaran, J. I. (2019). “Boys in power”: Consent and gen-
dered power dynamics in sex. Boyhood Studies: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 12(1), 38–56. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3167/ bhs. 2019. 120104
Pascoe, J. (2022). “Respect women”: Thinking beyond consent after
#MeToo. In D. Boonin (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of sexual
ethics (pp. 325–338). Palgrave Macmillan. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1007/ 978-3- 030- 87786-6_ 19
Persson, S., & Dhingra, K. (2022). Moderating factors in culpabil-
ity ratings and rape proclivity in stranger and acquaintance rape:
Validation of rape vignettes in a community sample. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 37(13–14), 11358–11385. https:// doi. org/
10. 1177/ 08862 60521 991294
Pulido, C., Cañaveras, P., Redondo-Sama, G., & Villarejo-Carballlido,
B. (2024). Do people comment on social networks about
sexual consent in TV series? Rethinking consent (or not) in
real situations: Contributions from debates in social media.
Sexuality & Culture, 28(1), 270–292. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s12119- 023- 10115-w
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Sexuality Research and Social Policy
Quinlivan, K. (2018). Exploring contemporary issues in sexuality edu-
cation with young people: Theories in practice. Palgrave Macmil-
lan. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ 978-1- 137- 50105-9_1
Rodgers, K. B., Hust, S. J. T., Li, J., Kang, S., & Garcia, A. L. (2023).
Sexual scripts and sexual consent: Gender stereotypes, music-
media messages, and sexual consent expectancies among college
men and women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38(15–16),
9264–9289. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 08862 60523 11657 66
Rubin, G. (1984). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory on the poli-
tics of sexuality. In C. Vance (Ed.), Pleasure and danger: Explor-
ing female sexuality (pp. 267–319). Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Santhosh, L., Keenan, B. P., & Jain, S. (2020). The “third shift”: A
path forward to recognising and funding gender equity efforts.
Journal of Women’s Health, 29(11), 1359–1360. https:// doi. org/
10. 1089/ jwh. 2020. 8679
Sawer, M. (2021). Dealing with toxic parliaments: Lessons from else-
where. Australasian Parliamentary Review, 36(1), 7–32.
Schrock, D., & Schwalbe, M. (2009). Men, masculinity, and manhood
acts. Annual Review of Sociology, 35(1), 277–295. https:// doi. org/
10. 1146/ annur ev- soc- 070308- 115933
Seidler, Z. E., Wilson, M. J., Kealy, D., Oliffe, J. L., Ogrodniczuk, J.
S., & Rice, S. M. (2022). Men’s preferences for therapist gender:
Predictors and impact on satisfaction with therapy. Counselling
Psychology Quarterly, 35(1), 173–189. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/
09515 070. 2021. 19408 66
Shen, Y., Zhang, C., Valimaki, M. A., Qian, H., Mohammadi, L., Chi,
Y., & Li, X. (2022). Why do men who have sex with men practice
condomless sex? A systematic review and meta-synthesis: BMC
Infectious Diseases. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s12879- 022- 07843-z
Slade, L. (2023, May 12). Consent education given $3.5 million to
reduce sexual violence among young people. 9News. https:// www.
9news. com. au/ natio nal/ teach- us- conse nt- given- more- fundi ng- for-
educa tion- in- schoo ls/ 2c2a4 d78- cb44- 4e8b- 97bb- 27144 3f66d 02
Smith, J. A., & Fieldsend, M. (2021). Interpretative phenomenologi-
cal analysis. In P. M. Camic, J. E. Rhodes, & L. Yardley (Eds.),
Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in
methodology and design (2nd ed., pp. 147–166). American Psy-
chological Association. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 00002 52- 008
Tremblay, D., Turcotte, A., Touati, N., Poder, T. G., Kilpatrick, K.,
Bilodeau, K., Roy, M., Richard, P. O., Lessard, S., & Giordano,
É. (2022). Development and use of research vignettes to collect
qualitative data from healthcare professionals: A scoping review.
BMJ Open. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1136/ bmjop en- 2021- 057095
Vanwesenbeeck, I., Cense, M., van Reeuwijk, M., & Westeneng, J.
(2021). Understanding sexual agency. Implications for Sexual
Health Programming. Sexes, 2(4), 378–396. https:// doi. org/ 10.
3390/ sexes 20400 30
Waling, A. (2023a). Combining ‘sex-as-dirty-work’ and ‘CMM’ frame-
works for recruiting cisgender, heterosexual men for a study on
sex, sexuality, and intimacy. International Journal of Social
Research Methodology. Advance online publication. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1080/ 13645 579. 2023. 21662 72
Waling, A. (2023b). ‘Inoculate boys against toxic masculinity’: Explor-
ing discourses of men and masculinity in #Metoo commentaries.
The Journal of Men’s Studies, 31(1), 130–156. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1177/ 10608 26522 10920 44
Waling, A. (2023c). ‘Pay close attention to what my eyes are saying with-
out having to spell it out’: Heterosexual relations and discourses
of sexual communication in #MeToo commentaries. Sexualities,
26(1–2), 140–161. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 13634 60721 10608 34
Waling, A. (2023d). Understanding how young cisgender heterosexual
men navigate sexual health conversations and practices during
casual sex: A qualitative study. Sexual Health, 20, 347–356.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1071/ SH230 12
Waling, A., Duncan, D., Angelides, S., & Dowsett, G. W. (2020).
‘Damn, Channing Tatum can move!’: Women’s accounts of men’s
bodies and objectification in post-feminist times. Sexualities,
25(5–6), 455–478. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 13634 60720 967657
Waling, A., James, A., & Fairchild, J. (2023a). Expert stakeholders’
perspectives on how cisgender heterosexual boys and young men
navigate sex and intimacy in Australia: A case for “heterosexual
intimacies” in policy and practice. Sexuality Research and Social
Policy, 20, 315–328. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s13178- 022- 00700-3
Waling, A., James, A., & Fairchild, J. (2023b). ‘I’m not going any-
where near that’: Expert stakeholder challenges in working
with boys and young men regarding sex and sexual consent.
Critical Social Policy, 43(2), 234–256. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/
02610 18322 11038 17
Willis, M., Canan, S. N., Jozkowski, K. N., & Bridges, A. J. (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/ 00224 499. 2019. 16555 22
Willis, M., & Jozkowski, K. N. (2019). Sexual precedent’s effect on
sexual consent communication. Archives of Sexual Behavior,
48(6), 1723–1734. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10508- 018- 1348-7
Willis, M., & Jozkowski, K. N. (2022). Sexual consent perceptions
of a fictional vignette: A latent growth curve model. Archives
of Sexual Behavior, 51(2), 797–809. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s10508- 021- 02048-y
Willis, M., Jozkowski, K. N., & 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/ 14681 811. 2018. 15107 69
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com