What is Consent, Coercion, and Deception?

1. Consent

Definition:

In the initial context of sexual consent research, the concept of consent was defined vaguely and inconsistently; often used by authors as an implicit definition (Beres, 2007). Additionally, the fact that each author uses different interpretations or approaches to this concept makes defining consent even more difficult. Based on certain criteria and classifications, Muehlenhard et al. (2016) divided the ways of defining sexual consent into 3 main trends, including:

• Consent as an internal state: This approach defines consent as an "internal state of willingness." This is a feeling, decision, or personal attitude that cannot be directly observed from the outside. According to Muehlenhard et al. (2016) and Fenner (2017), this is the root of consent, but due to its internal nature, it poses challenges in identification and proof.

• Consent as explicit agreement behavior: This approach views consent as explicitly agreeing through clear words or actions. It corresponds with the concept of "affirmative consent," or "Yes Means Yes," where silence or non-resistance is not automatically considered consent. The responsibility belongs to the person initiating the behavior to ensure clear consent is obtained (Muehlenhard et al., 2016; Burton, 2021).

• Consent as behavior interpreted as willingness: This concept is also called "implied consent," where consent is inferred from behaviors, signs, or even silence in a specific context. Although common in practice, this approach carries many risks of misunderstanding and misinterpretation (Beres, 2014; Muehlenhard et al., 2016).

The three approaches above have summarized the types of definitions of consent in social science research. Additionally, the legal perspective also provides a definition of consent. The legal definition of consent typically focuses on two main elements: capacity and communication. Capacity can be affected by factors such as age, mental state, and alertness (for example, due to the influence of alcohol or drugs). If a person does not have sufficient capacity, any consent is not considered valid (Beres, 2014).

Overall, consent can be understood in many different ways depending on the context and research approach of each author. These approaches reveal a fundamental contradiction between consent as an unobservable internal state on one side, and the efforts of law and society to define it through observable external behaviors on the other. Nevertheless, in essence, the common point of definitions of sexual consent still revolves around the issue of an individual's agreement in sexual activity. Within the framework of this article, we base our understanding on the most common point in the concepts of consent from research authors, and based on Beres' (2007) suggestion, we define sexual consent in the most general way as a form of expressing agreement to participate in sexual activity.

​

Characteristics:

There are 4 main characteristics of consent:

• Specificity: Pundik (2015) argues that consent in sexual relations is "very specific." This means consent is only valid for a specific time, a specific person, and a specific type of behavior. For example: a person consenting to safe sex does not mean they consent to sex without safety measures.

• Process vs. Event: Consent can be viewed in two ways. One is as a discrete event, a single decisive moment (for example: a gesture called "the butt lift" to allow underwear removal) (Beres, 2014). Two is as a continuous process of negotiation and communication that needs to be maintained and reaffirmed throughout the sexual interaction (Muehlenhard et al., 2016). The second view is increasingly supported because it more accurately reflects the dynamic and continuous nature of human intimacy, where consent must be continuously negotiated and reaffirmed, rather than being considered a single, transactional approval given at the beginning (for example: a person may consent to sex initially but they can withdraw their consent at any time, even during intercourse).

• Communication: There are 4 types of communication signals classified by Hickman and Muehlenhard (1999), including: (a) direct verbal signals, (b) direct nonverbal signals, (c) indirect verbal signals, and (d) indirect nonverbal signals. Research shows that consent is often expressed indirectly and nonverbally through gestures, eye contact, and responsive actions. Direct verbal communication, although encouraged, is less common in practice (Hickman and Muehlenhard, 1999; Fenner, 2017).

• Distinction from "Wantedness": This is an important distinction. A person may consent to a sexual act that they don't actually want. There are many reasons for this, such as pleasing a partner, social pressure, or for another goal (for example: getting pregnant). Therefore, consent is about permission, while wanting is about desire. Sexual assault is the absence of consent, not necessarily the absence of desire (Muehlenhard et al., 2016; Peterson & Muehlenhard, 2007).

​

​

2. Coercion

Definition:

According to Pundik (2015), the coercer is the person who performs sexual acts with the victim who is in a state of "actual refusal." This means the victim has clearly expressed non-consent or has the will to refuse, but the coercer continues the behavior. Struckman-Johnson et al. (2003) provide a more behavioral definition: coercion is "the act of using pressure, alcohol or drugs, or force to have sex with someone against their will."

Overall, coercion can be understood as an individual (the coercer) performing sexual actions on another individual (the victim) in a compulsory manner, against the victim's wishes; it may include threatening behaviors using force or power.

​

Characteristics:

Pundik (2015) identified two prominent characteristics of coercive behavior:

• Cruelty: The coercer shows cruelty when they cruelly ignore the victim's suffering. This suffering is not something distant or abstract, but it is "present right in their face" through the victim's resistance, words, or emotions. Continuing the behavior despite that suffering is a manifestation of cruelty.

• Dismissiveness: The coercer dismissively disregards the victim's negative reactive attitudes such as resentment, anger, or fear. By ignoring these emotions, the coercer not only violates the victim's will but also fails to recognize them as a human being with emotions worthy of respect.

Additionally, according to Struckman-Johnson et al. (2003), coercive behavior exists on a broad spectrum of tactics, from subtle forms of psychological pressure and verbal manipulation to blatant use of physical force.

​

Forms of Coercion:

Struckman-Johnson et al. (2003) classified forms of coercion into 4 levels of increasing sexual exploitation:

• Level 1: Nonverbal arousal tactics such as touching, kissing, or removing clothing – considered the lowest level because these can also be seduction behaviors in a consensual context, but become coercive when the other person has refused.

• Level 2: Emotional manipulation and lying, including verbal pressure, repeated pleading, threatening to break up, or deceiving. These behaviors aim to wear down the recipient's resistance or exploit emotional needs, thus having higher exploitative nature.

• Level 3: Related to alcohol and stimulants, such as taking advantage of or deliberately intoxicating someone to achieve sexual relations. At this level, the victim may lose the ability to consent consciously and voluntarily, making the behavior clearly coercive.

• Level 4: Use of physical violence and harm, considered the highest level of exploitation because the recipient is forced against their will, potentially leading to injury. Behaviors at levels 3 and 4 often meet the legal criteria for rape according to Koss et al.'s (1987) definition.

This classification helps clarify the spectrum of sexual coercive behavior, from socially "soft" forms to serious criminal acts, while emphasizing the importance of considering actual consent rather than relying solely on external behavior in sexual relationships.

​

​

3. Deception

Definition:

Unlike coercion – which is the subjugation of refusal – deception operates by manipulating consent. The deceiver does not confront the victim's will but distorts reality so that the victim gives consent based on false information. According to Pundik (2015), in a case of deception, the victim is in a state of "actual consent" to the sexual act as it is falsely described. However, they are in a state of "counterfactual refusal" to that act if they knew the truth. Gibson (2020) distinguishes between active deception, which is deliberately lying, and passive deception, which is not disclosing important information when there is an obligation to do so.

Thus, deception in a sexual context is understood as distorting information, misrepresenting the situation, or concealing and not disclosing important information related to sexual activity in order to obtain sexual consent.

​

Characteristics:

Deception has distinct characteristics when compared to coercion:

• Difference in Wrongfulness: Pundik (2015) suggests that deception is often less wrong than coercion. The reason is that the deceiver actively avoids confronting the victim's suffering and negative attitudes at the time the act occurs. They create an illusion of consent, rather than directly confronting refusal.

• Violation of Autonomy: Gibson (2020) explains that deception violates the victim's autonomy by distorting their reasoning basis. The victim still makes a choice, but that choice is not authentic because it is based on false premises created by the deceiver.

• Importance of "Materiality"/"Deal-breaker": Not every lie invalidates consent. According to Dougherty (cited in Gibson, 2020), deception must relate to an important factor, a "deal-breaker" for the victim's consent decision. If the hidden truth is not important enough to change the victim's decision, then consent may still be considered valid.

​

Forms of Deception:

Current research classifies forms of deception in 2 ways: (1) based on the victim's mental state (Pundik, 2015) and (2) based on the nature of deception in a legal context (Gibson, 2020; Clough, 2018).

Based on the victim's actual mental state, Pundik divides deception cases into two types:

• Case where the victim refuses the actual act: In this case, the victim has formed a refusal to the proposed act with details matching reality, but the perpetrator's false presentation caused them to agree to a different act (whose details match that false presentation).

• Case where the victim is in a state of lack of actual consent: In this case, the victim is in a state of lacking actual consent to the actual act, which can be understood as the question of consenting or refusing that act has never been consciously processed by the victim.

Example: A typical case is when intoxicated, an individual often lacks the alertness to truly consider the question of consent carefully; in many cases, the individual may be so intoxicated they lose consciousness and are completely unable to communicate.

From a legal perspective, sexual deception acts are divided into two types based on what the victim is deceived about:

• Fraud in the Factum: This is the case where the victim is deceived to the extent that they don't know a sexual act is occurring at all.

• Fraud in the Inducement: This is the case where the victim is aware that sexual activity is occurring, but is deceived about another aspect of that act or about the perpetrator themselves (the motivation to consent). This classification direction is further divided into types such as:

  • Impersonation: The perpetrator pretends to be someone else to obtain consent.

  • Characteristics of the perpetrator: The perpetrator lies about an important characteristic of themselves, which is a decisive factor for the victim's consent.

  • Purpose: The victim consents to an act for a non-sexual purpose, while the perpetrator has a hidden sexual purpose.