Anything other than a clear, unequivocal “yes” is not consent
There, no form needed
My point was that “consent” is a vague term that might not be understood the same by everyone so for a formal, legal context like a law it would make sense to define it more precisely, including edge cases ((how) can a person consent who is unable to speak or to a person who is unable to listen,…).
I never get, how people can make it so complicated. If you are not 100% the other person has given their consent…act as if you do not have it. Keep communicating until you are sure. You can not talk? Then write. Or communicate with gestures. If you have no clear “yes”, it’s a “no”. And a “yes” can also mean: Give the other person space to leave if they wish and allow them to make the first move. There are so many ways to give consent. Also saying “yes” is not necessarily consent. If someone is pressured and the consequence of saying “no” is violence, then even a “yes” is still not consent. There is no way to define it. So as @animist@lemmy.one said, if there is no 100% clear "yes, there is no consent.
For example, some people freeze up. They are assaulted and freeze. Many know the fight or flight response. But freeze is also very common. So they might not struggle, they might not fight back. So force might not even be needed from the attacker. The other person never said “no”, right? But that does not mean there is consent. And now the law is updated and the fact that there was no consent is enough that the law can consider it rape. That’s it.
Basically nothing changes for the average person.
