I think the way discussions about consent, even well-intentioned ones, are worded can obfuscate what consent is and why it's important.

Consent is not a permission slip.

In the following I will try to explain why the language surrounding consent bothers me. Why I feel we're missing part of the point because our language is set in certain grooves and it's hard to veer out of them. This may get rambly. I'm trapped in these grooves as well. The best I can describe it in short is:

What we call "consent" and therefore what our consent discussions revolve around is not consent, which is internal. It is the expression of consent!

The focus, it seems, is always on the expression of consent and our responsibility to say "No!", to say "Yes!" or to wait before we proceed for our partners to "give us consent". We talk about consent like it's a permission slip.

Consent is a state of agreement.

The word "consent" has Latin origins and consists of the affix "con-", meaning "together" and "sentire", which means "to feel". Feeling together. That's not a permission slip, it's a state of being where two or more people feel the same way! Consent, in my opinion, shouldn't primarily be understood as the momentary act of giving permission, but as a meeting of minds, an alignment of wishes and desires.

Consent is not the moment of agreeing but a state of agreement! This is the only state when we can have sex safely without harming our partners. Consent is vital for any kind of sex!

What does this mean for consent discussions?

A quote attributed to Antoine de Saint-Exupéry says if you want men to build a ship, don't get mired in details and tell them how to cut wood and how to nail together planks but instead awaken in them a longing for the grand sea. The rationale being that it's not motivating to be told to saw planks, but once people are motivated to explore the sea they'll figure out the best way to build a ship for the task by themselves. -- I feel like in many discussions of consent we get mired in details.

Don't get me wrong: Of course, we need to teach each other how to best build a ship that won't sink. Or respectively, how to recognize consent or a lack thereof! These details are important! I just don't want us to forget what we're doing it for.

Example: "No means no!"

A popular slogan used to be "No means no!", urging people to respect a "No!" If you continue after a clear "No!" that's rape. There's a frightening quote in this article:

[Following the Steubenville rape case in which an unconscious girl was gang-raped] "Some of my kids were genuinely confused," she wrote. "'How can she be raped?' they asked, 'She wasn't awake to say no.'"

That's getting caught up in the menial minutiae of shipbuilding (the expression of consent) and forgetting about the sea (consent). That knocked out girl didn't want to get raped by a group of boys and have the incident spread on social media to mock her. They did it anyway, in violent discordance with her wishes. Whether she said "No!" is just an indicator, not the issue.

Example: "Yes means yes!"

Our standard for such indicators has evolved since "No means no!"

We discovered people generally don't like saying "No!" so they will instead try to be more subtle and manipulate the situation away from sex. Gently push the initiator back, turn away from kisses.. "I'm tired." "I think you're really attractive, but.." In some cases, people get so overwhelmed by the situation it's impossible for them to even muster this much resistance. Some freeze up and maybe dissociate while others try to appease their perceived attackers to get them to let off.

The latest standard is "enthusiastic consent", "affirmative consent", or "Yes means yes!" I.e. the absence of "No!" alone is not enough. You need an active "Yes!"

That's a pretty good blueprint for a seaworthy ship, I think, but it's still all about the ship, not about the sea.

There is still debate, for example, of whether it's rape if you "get consent" through deceit! "It was enthusiastic at the time! I followed my shipbuilding orders to the letter." Yeah, but where's your longing for the sea? For making sure there is consent? Not the permission slip type of consent you diligently acquired, but the internal, two minds and desires in sync consent. If that's a priority to you, you can't want to trick people into giving you permission. That doesn't make sense.

Looking forward, I think it would be helpful to be mindful of our language so we don't continue to reduce the requirement for consent to a requirement for expressions of consent.