Understanding the Nuances of Consent

The FRIES Model
​At SASC, we use the FRIES model, originally created by Planned Parenthood, to define what consent is.
​
It stands for: 
F – Freely Given. Without pressure, threats, tricks, or manipulation.  
R – Reversible. Everyone has the right to change their mind at any point.
I – Informed. Everyone knows what they are consenting to. 
E – Engaged. Mutually present, and not just voluntary, but what someone desires.  
S – Specific. Individual components must be agreed upon, such as the acts, timing, and limits.  

Planned Parenthood created the initial FRIES acronym. At SASC, we use Engaged instead of the original Enthusiastic, because engagement can exist in a diverse range of behaviours beyond enthusiasm.

Consent requires that all aspects be met; you can’t just meet one of them and claim to have consent. For example, if someone is engaged and freely gives consent to hug someone, but that person kisses them or puts their hand up their shirt, there was not informed or specific consent.  
FRIES acts as a guide to ensure everyday interactions are consensual, however, it is most often used for understanding consent in sexual contexts. One of the most misunderstood aspects of this is the R: Reversible, or sometimes called Revokable, piece. The reversible aspect of consent is often misunderstood or misrepresented in discussions, online forums, or in the media. For example, considering it a 'grey area' if someone initially consents but then changes their mind.

First, let's explore what reversibility of consent means, specifically in terms of sexual interactions, and then unpack its meaning and application to the scenario and argument above.
​
Reversible consent means that it can be withdrawn at any time during the interaction. The most basic example of this would be that while two people are kissing, one pulls away or says stop, this person has reversed or removed their consent. A continuation of the behaviour after that point would be without consent. 

Consent is not a promise. Just because someone consented and started engaging in something, does not mean they are obligated to continue. Any party can change their minds. 

The emphasis here is that the removal is during the encounter. In a situation where two people have consensual sex, then as in our situation above, one ‘removes’ their consent and says it was assault, this would be wrong. Reversible consent does not mean that after you have consented and an action has been completed, that people can change the narrative of whether they provided consent or not.

False Reports 
If someone had a truly consensual interaction and then changed their opinion of that person or wanted revenge, and lied saying it wasn’t consensual, they are in the wrong. However, this is often just a narrative used to perpetuate the myth that survivors falsely accuse others of assault. Particularly that women choose to accuse men of assault because they are upset with or regret an interaction. This is a misrepresentation of false reports.

In Canada, false sexual assault reports are extremely rare, accounting for only 2-4% of reports. The rate of false reports for sexual assault is actually lower than that of other crimes. Beliefs around false allegations and misunderstandings of consent create harmful narratives leading to not believing survivors and people who come forward. 

The statistics show that not only are false reports extremely rare, but the reports that do happen don't actually represent all assaults that occur. This means that there are way more sexual assaults happening than are ever officially reported. People may feel like they need to 'remain neutral', or even give the alleged perpetrator the benefit of the doubt, but statistically it's most likely that the survivor is telling the truth. We should always believe survivors. 

Consent Scenario  
A couple is winding down for the evening. M makes physical advances on B by touching their back and kissing their neck. B does not respond in an engaged way, brushes it off and goes to shower. When they get into bed afterwards, M is naked waiting for them and tries to initiate physical contact again. B brushes it off again and says they are not in the mood. M tries to encourage them, saying things like come on we'll be quick, I've been thinking about you all day. B gives in and they have sex. 

In a relationship where physical affection is commonly given and accepted, something called meta consent or default consent is established. The initial contact or invitation M extended was within that context. However, behaviour after B declined and said no, is not consensual. Even with meta consent in place, the FRIES model still applies. While some situations do require a nuanced understanding of consent, purposeful ignorance or disregard of changes in engagement or desires is predatory and harmful behaviour.  ​

B had no opportunity to reverse consent as it was never truly given. Any situation where someone is manipulated, coerced, asked repeatedly, their physical cues (such as not kissing back, or moving away) and words are ignored until someone ‘gives in’ is not consent. 
 
This situation actually echoes many people's experiences with sexual assault and the repercussions of these situations. Many survivors do not fully come to terms with something being an assault until the situation is progressing or has finished. It can take days, weeks, or even years to recognize and acknowledge that their experience was sexual assault or rape. ​

This can be for a variety of reasons, including a misunderstanding of authentic consent. If someone, like B, does not know that coercion is not consent, they may feel wrong about the situation but not understand why or try to convince themselves that it was okay. Survivors may also not realize due to the shock or trauma of the situation, which can impact thoughts and memories. One's connection or relationship to the perpetrator may also affect the ability to recognize assault. Considering the situation above. M and B are in a relationship. They may have been dating for a while and even have their relationship return to normal after this encounter. In this situation, B may not label it as assault initially. They may downplay it to a misunderstanding, tell themselves it wasn’t assault because they have love for that person, or even blame themselves. 

The 'Rape Script' and Victim-Blaming​
Another reason why someone may struggle to identify an assault is called the ‘Rape Script’. This is a script that people use to identify what sexual assault “looks like”, and if a situation does not align with that script, there is doubt. The most common script is that a person is physically attacked, perhaps with a weapon involved, walking alone at night. In scenarios where this isn’t the case, it is harder for people to recognize assault. 
 
This is sometimes the case for the survivors themselves, but also individuals hearing about assaults. When people hear scenarios such as the one above with M and B, they may not view it as assault because the perpetrator wasn’t a stranger, or because they ‘loved’ them, or because they didn’t use physical violence. Furthermore, the idea that something is only assault when the survivor has physically fought, screamed, or tried to escape is false and ignores trauma responses and the danger of these situations. There are many reasons someone might ‘give in’ or not physically resist an assault, such as shock, fear, shame, or power imbalances. 

Ultimately, this perspective is based in victim-blaming ideologies, where the tendency may be to wonder why the survivor didn't do more to stop or escape, when the real question should be how many signs of resistance did the perpetrator choose to ignore. This is why consent contains all the FRIES components; they all must exist for something to be truly consensual. While someone might be informed on what is happening, such as B, they may have been coerced or not truly engaged. 

In Summary
When someone decides that something is non-consensual after consent was given, that is dishonest and NOT what reversible consent means.  Reversible consent means that consent can be withdrawn during an interaction, where consent existed, to stop further unwanted action from happening. 

Returning to the first situation, someone ‘withdrawing’ consent that was previously given, after an encounter, to falsely say it was rape is wrong and not what reversible consent means. This is a purposeful misrepresentation of the reversibility of consent, which only means that at any point in an encounter someone can withdraw consent to stop more from continuing. 

Situations where someone realizes that something was assault or not consensual is not solely about the ‘reversibility’ in FRIES. Rather, that is a situation where consent was not fully given initially. Regardless of which aspect of FRIES was not included, it was not consensual.  
Consent can’t be achieved without all of FRIES. It must be freely given, reversible, informed, engaged and specific. If an interaction is missing one of these aspects, it is not consensual.

​While this article has focused on sexual interactions, we can use the same principles to build a culture of consent in our daily interactions. Imagine that someone asks to borrow your phone to make a call. You can ask for it back. They shouldn't be doing anything else other than making that call. And you shouldn't feel pressured to let them borrow it if you don't really want to.

---

If you have questions or need support, never hesitate to reach out to us. 

Support is always available. Please call (519) 741-8633 to access our 24-Hour Support Line. You can also text (519) 741-8633 or use the chat function on sascwr.org to access support between 8:00 AM and midnight, 7-days a week.

For more information on sexual assault, false reporting, or other aspects of FRIES, check out these resources: 

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/benefits-military/conflict-misconduct/sexual-misconduct/training-educational-materials/myths-facts.html   
https://svpro.mcmaster.ca/prevention/learning-hub/consent/  
https://thedragonflycentre.com/consent/consent-is-as-easy-as-fries/  
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/jr14/p9.html