Reading time: 3 minutes, 10 seconds (760 words)
With nearly three-quarters of the world’s population being online in 2025, the internet has become increasingly important for creating and maintaining social interactions. While technology is often credited with making life easier, when it comes to sexual consent, it introduces new complications.
PhD candidate Rebecca Fisico, Dr. Margaret McKinnon, and Dr. Heather Moulden recently published a narrative review to examine how technology may be reshaping sexual consent. They suggest updating sex education using principle- and ethics-based approaches and educating adults as well as children and teens.
This is a plain language summary of:
Fisico, R., McKinnon, M. C., & Moulden, H. (2026). New directions for sexual consent in a digitized world: A narrative review. Sexes, 7(2), 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/sexes7020019
Digital Sexual Interactions and Consent
“Sexual interactions in digital contexts” (SIDCs) is a term used for sexual interactions involving technology. It has three categories:
- Using technology during (e.g., using pornography with a partner; live-streaming partnered sex) or to meet others for an in-person sexual interaction (e.g., dating apps)
- Using technology to directly facilitate a sexual experience (e.g., sexting, virtual reality sex between two people’s avatars)
- Using technology without another person (e.g., virtual reality pornography, sexbots)
Technology has also created new ways to communicate (e.g., emojis), meet partners (e.g., dating apps), and engage in sexual interactions (e.g., sexting).
Unfortunately, SIDCs present a risk of people perpetrating and experiencing sexual harm in digital contexts. As with in-person interactions, consent is clearly an essential part of SIDCs.
As a new area, researchers may overlook digital consent because it is not well understood. The authors reviewed selected sources about in-person and digital sexual consent to analyze similarities and differences between in-person and digital consent.
The authors found significant overlap in the consent practices and cues people use. Because of this, they describe digital sexual consent as a subset of sexual consent practices that occur within or involve the online context.
Similarities and Differences
In-person and digital consent follow a similar process. Sexual activity often begins after people perceive cues indicating sexual interest or consent. As an example, inviting the other person to move from a social setting to a private one can be considered a sexual consent cue. This is similar to people agreeing to meet in person after talking online. These types of cues are concerning because they rely on subjective interpretation, which can be misunderstood.
Unfortunately, another similarity is that both in-person and digital sexual consent can be violated. Just as in-person activity can occur without a person’s consent, SIDCs can occur without consent.
Cues indicating interest or consent differ in person and digitally. For example, digital interactions lack body language and tone of voice.
It has been suggested that the online environment is disinhibiting, so individuals may behave differently online than they would in person.
People often find it uncomfortable to directly ask for consent in person because it raises concerns, such as being rejected. However, the authors write that “despite some people continuing to express concern that conversations about sexual consent may elicit feelings of discomfort in the digital context, others describe feeling increased comfort with these conversations, which they perceive as having less stigma in this context.”
Disengaging from non-consensual sexual interactions may also be more direct in the digital context because of the physical distance and the ability to block people.
Online interactions can also provide a digital record of conversations about sexual consent. During in-person sexual interactions, consent cannot be reviewed after the interaction. In contrast, technology may serve as evidence of whether consent was given. However, this evidence could be interpreted as consent even when there is other evidence to the contrary.
Practical Application
As technology changes sexual interactions and consent, there is a need to modernize sex education. The authors suggest scholars and schools move away from education based on abstinence principles and prescriptive, non-evidence–based definitions of sexual consent. This would shift education toward a principle-oriented approach that includes sexual ethics. This less prescriptive, principle- or ethics-based education would not depend on context. It could be applicable to both in-person and digital sexual interactions.
The education would also provide males and females with the same education and messaging, preparing both for ethical negotiation of sexual interactions.
Improving digital literacy and promoting responsible online behaviours would be complementary topics in digital sexual education.
Because adults also need this type of education, the authors suggest sharing this programming widely, such as on social media.
Written by Virginia St-Denis and approved by Rebecca Fisico and Dr. Heather Moulden.
