Consent, law and the limits of education

On 18 December 2025 the government published its two part, cross-government strategy aimed at building a safer society for women and girls. This follows a pledge to halve violence against women and girls (VAWG) within a decade. Such an ambitious commitment necessarily requires a multi-strand approach, which the VAWG strategy seeks to provide. Encouragingly, it places significant emphasis on prevention and early intervention including a renewed focus on consent education in schools and beyond. 

The inclusion of consent education implicitly recognises that consent remains widely misunderstood, contributing to unsafe environments for women and girls. It also invites a broader examination of how misunderstandings of consent affect all parties involved. In particular, confusion around consent can also create significant risks for boys and men in understanding their responsibilities. Whether school-based education alone can combat the far more pervasive and persuasive misinformation proliferated online via social media is highly questionable. In a battle between information provided by teachers in school assembly, and influencers on TikTok, who will win the minds of the younger generation? 

Public perception 

Consent in the context of serious sexual offences is no longer a taboo topic. It is talked about widely in schools, among peers, and across popular culture through films, books and theatre. Public campaigns have amplified messages around sexual autonomy and boundaries. In the wake of the “Me Too” movement scrutiny of sexual encounters where consent may be absent has rightly intensified. Against this backdrop, it might reasonably be assumed that public understanding of consent is well developed. However, the data suggests otherwise.

In January 2024 the Crown Prosecution Service published the results of the largest survey of its kind in five years, commissioning charity “Equally Ours” to carry out an analysis of public understanding of rape and serious sexual offences and the law on consent. The findings revealed significant false beliefs, misunderstandings, lack of knowledge and misconceptions. Notably, 49% of those surveyed were unsure or did not know what reasonable belief in consent was. 

Of particular concern was the concentration of misunderstandings among younger respondents. For example, while 62% of respondents recognised that even if no physical force is involved a person might not be free and able to consent to sex, this fell to 40% among those aged 18-24, compared with 74% of those aged over 65. Whether this disparity reflects differences in maturity and/or exposure to inconsistent messaging about sex and consent warrants careful consideration. 

Legal position 

Despite public uncertainty, the legal framework governing consent has been settled for some time. The offence of rape requires intentional penetration, absence of consent and absence of reasonable belief in consent. Similar elements exist for other sexual offences against adults. For instance, an offence of assault by penetration requires not only intentional sexual penetration but also the absence of consent and reasonable belief in consent. And comparably, an offence of sexual touching would involve intentional sexual touching without consent and without reasonable belief in consent. 

Consent 

A person consents if they agree by choice and have the freedom and capacity to make that choice. The law recognises the importance of genuine freedom of choice and that sexual activity with a person who cannot consent (e.g. because of a medical disorder impeding choice or through intoxication or unconsciousness) would be criminal. The law rightly provides protection for these vulnerable individuals, although demonstrating intoxication to the point of being unwilling to consent is often a hurdle to some prosecutions.  

There is also the ever-developing area of so-called “conditional” consent: where a complainant agrees to sexual activity only on the basis that certain conditions are met. This can include common agreements such as use of a condom (where removal, or “stealthing” subsequently vitiates consent), but more recently the courts have held it to include scenarios such as deception as to a person’s biological sex. Other attempts to expand the definition, for example in a case involving deception as to fertility status, have been overturned by the Court of Appeal.  It is anticipated that the issue of conditional consent is one which will continue to be brought before the courts, and the definitions tested further in future.  

Reasonable belief in consent 

Whether a belief is “reasonable” is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps taken by the accused to ascertain consent. The law also provides for evidential and conclusive presumptions relating to consent in defined circumstances, meaning that the defendant must prove that the presumptions did not apply. By way of example, if an individual were asleep, drugged or subject to violence at the time of the sexual encounter or immediately before it, the law will presume that the complainant did not consent to the sexual act and the defendant did not reasonably believe that the complainant consented. The presumption can only be challenged if sufficient evidence is presented to raise a real issue about that consent or reasonable belief in consent.

The concept of reasonable belief incorporates both a subjective and objective test. Put simply, this involves an assessment of the defendant’s personal capacity to evaluate consent followed by an assessment of whether a reasonable person in the same situation would have believed the complainant consented. Whilst steps taken by the defendant to ascertain consent are considered relevant circumstances for determining whether their belief is reasonable, the substance of those steps is not prescribed, nor are enquiries about consent a pre-requisite for establishing reasonable belief. 

Mixed messaging online 

The VAWG strategy recognises the unprecedented challenge presented by the online world. It recognises that deeply rooted societal attitudes and outdated gender norms which fuel VAWG are being reinforced online, with sexual entitlement being promoted, consent trivialised and abuse normalised. The rising popularity of figures in the “manosphere” such as Andrew Tate combined with the fact most children and teenagers have access to smartphones from a young age presents an obvious risk. This is reflected in recent data highlighting that one in six boys aged 6 – 15 have a positive view of Tate, a self-proclaimed misogynist who has publicly suggested that individuals bear responsibility for placing themselves in a position to be raped. 

At the same time an equally damaging counter narrative has gained traction online, particularly on platforms such as TikTok, which is used by around half of the UK’s teenage population. Here, consent is frequently framed as requiring an “enthusiastic yes”, with well-intentioned but legally incorrect messages asserting that anything less does not constitute consent. 

Whilst the Tate style trivialisation of consent is plainly harmful, the dissemination of legally incorrect information as to what constitutes consent is also a problem. Not all consensual sexual encounters are enthusiastic and a failure to appreciate how the criminal law interprets the nuances of human intimacy risks serious consequences. Individuals accused of rape (frequently in a public forum online as well as to the police) may be subject to immediate social ostracism during the early stages of investigation for conduct which, in law, amounts to reasonable belief in consent and ultimately results in no charges being brought or an acquittal. 

Efforts to simplify consent such as the “consent as tea” analogy have attracted criticism for simplifying what, in real life, are often delicate and complex interactions. In a digital age where social media serves as a primary source of information for many young people, inconsistent messaging compounds misunderstanding rather than resolving it, leading to traumatic circumstances both to the accuser and the accused.

Why this matters, and is there a way forward?

The Equally Ours research highlights clear dangers for women and girls where, for example, it is not understood that a person may be unable to consent even in the absence of physical force. Beyond the immediate harm of non-consensual sexual activity, such misunderstandings may prevent victims from recognising that they are entitled to report offences and seek justice. Those who have committed serious offences may evade accountability. At the same time, sexual encounters that are consensual but unenthusiastic, awkward or non-verbal may give rise to mistaken allegations. Individuals who acted within the confines of the law may face lasting reputational damage and social exclusion irrespective of the eventual legal outcome. Even if no report is made to the police, the harms which stem from an allegation of sexual misconduct made in a public forum are potentially catastrophic and, in some cases, have led to those accused taking their own lives.

Greater efforts must be made to counter the spread of plainly inaccurate information. The VAWG strategy’s emphasis on preventing online harm, alongside consent education in schools, is a welcome step. But to be fully effective in the digital age, that strategy should be expanded to include a clear commitment to legal accuracy in public messaging around consent. This would ensure greater protection for victims whilst also promoting better understanding of, and fairness in, the criminal justice process.