By respecting our daughter’s wishes when she asks us to stop tickling her, my husband and I are modeling other correct behavior as well: We’re establishing, early on, the need to give and obtain consent when it comes to control of one’s own body.
A bill to clarify the definition of rape—and close what some saw as a loophole—passed a Utah House Committee yesterday, but not before sparking some disturbing conversations about what constitutes rape.
At institutions and in organizations that ostensibly cater to older adults’ needs, the matter of their sexuality is often ignored altogether.
Central to the political agenda of men’s rights activists is floating the idea that men somehow have a “right” to an abortion, or more accurately a right to interfere with a woman’s right to an abortion—an argument that highlights the intersecting bigotries embedded in the men’s rights movement.
A situation in June in which a woman sent unsolicited penis pictures she had received to the sender’s mother, and an ongoing debate in Britain about what, if any, depictions of sex should be banned have raised interesting questions about the limits of privacy and consent.
What to do when someone’s religious beliefs or ideas conflict with your need and want for safer sex and pregnancy prevention.
Trial starts in the case charging two high school football players with rape, and not surprisingly, the defense is arguing consent.
There’s no “should” for when and if we feel ready for any kind of sex, or want to engage in any kind of sex. And no one knows better than you when, and if, that time is.
The Tennessee Supreme Court has an opportunity to reject a dangerous legal interpretation that holds statutory rape victims can be considered accomplices in the crime committed against them. But will it?
A recent California decision shows why updating our sex crimes laws should be a top priority of 2013.