[CthulhuOvermind]

In the case of sex, it is an action that is legal(or not) depending on consent.

In the example I gave earlier, the female has obtained consent from her partner. The male changes his mind half-way through but does not stop or act in any different way.

In cases such as these, my understanding(and gut feeling really) is that since knowledge of consent is what makes an action legal, the person had no knowledge consent was revoked, and cannot be charged for something that is impossible to avoid being guilty of?

[chris_wot]

In that case, consent was mutually given and if the other party then changes their mind and asks the other to stop, then consent ceases, right?

If the other party is not signalled that consent was withdrawn, then it is, in my mind, a bit tricky. It means that consent was no longer there, but the other party didn't have any way of knowing. I think it's fair to say that no assault occurred, but it's still damaging to the one no longer wanting to have sex. In that case it's really unfortunate for both parties :-(

[taneq]

How is this in any way tricky? Consent is something the giving of which involves clear communication, not just something that exists in the mind of one of the parties. Likewise, consent can't just 'cease', it has to be withdrawn, which involves communicating the withdrawal to all parties concerned.

It's like signing up for a phone contract, then deciding you don't want it any more and stopping using the phone. If you don't tell the provider then they're completely within their rights to keep billing you.

[chris_wot]

Fair point.

[cauterized]

But it's also worth mentioning that consent does have to be renewed between each act. Just because he consented last night doesn't mean she can assume consent tonight without a fresh affirmative indication of consent. (Which doesn't have to be verbal, necessarily, but should be enthusiastic participation rather than simply submission to a partner's overtures.)