LAUSR

In recent years, sexual violence prevention has been undergoing a shift towards a consent-focused model of rape prevention. Oxford and Cambridge universities have mandated consent training for all incoming students (Weale, 2014), and California passed a law requiring all colleges to provide policies and training for students on affirmative consent (consent where it is the initiator’s responsibility to ensure consent has been granted; De Leon, 2014). Activist campaigns have also taken up the language of consent. Slogans such as ‘consent is sexy’ and ‘sex without consent is rape’ are being popularized by social media campaigns and activist efforts such as Slut Walk (see Dajee, 2014; Lam et al., 2014; Sexual Assault Voices, 2010). The recent article published by Thomas and colleagues (2017) focusing on women’s accounts of faking orgasm provides an opportunity to revisit the role of consent for sexual violence prevention and sexuality education more broadly. Thomas and colleagues present a compelling description of how women talk about their ‘bad’ sex experiences. In their analysis they call attention to the slippery slope between consensual sex and what they call ‘problem’ sex. The women they spoke with identified a range of ‘problem’ sex and talked about some instances of coerced sex in the same way others spoke about sex with an unskilled lover. To manage instances of ‘problem sex’ the women at times reported faking an orgasm. In doing so, they exercised agency and control over their sexual experiences. Yet, they also inadvertantly reinforced problematic heteronormative assumptions about sex (Thomas et al., 2017). Education efforts focusing on consent assume that teaching people the importance of obtaining consent will reduce rates of sexual harm. Yet, this assumption is called into question when we consider how many of the experiences described by women as ‘problem’ sex met standard definitions for coercion. In other words, we have examples here of ‘consensual’ sex where the women reported feeling pressured Sexualities 2018, Vol. 21(4) 702–705 ! The Author(s) 2017 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1363460717708151 journals.sagepub.com/home/sex