July 20, 2026

-

Premium

SEX & CONSENT

Every day, in millions of Indian homes, a quiet transaction takes place. A woman wants to say `no'--to a demand, a touch, an expectation--and cal culates what it will cost her. Will it be heard as a boundary or as an insult? Will she have to explain it, soften it, apologise for it? Or is it simpler to just go along? Consent, at its core, is the answer to a single question: does a woman's `no' count? The question matters because consent is the smallest unit of freedom. Before a woman can claim equality in the Constitution, the workplace or the marriage bed, she must be able to refuse without fear, and to change her mind without punishment. India has debated consent loudly in recent years: in courtrooms weighing marital rape, in newsrooms after #MeToo, in films, classrooms and family WhatsApp groups. The word has entered the national vocabulary. What nobody has measured, until now, is whether it has entered the national conversation. That is what the India Today Group set out to do. Its consent survey, the first of its kind in the country, asked 5,000 adult women across every region, income group, education level, religion, employment category, marital status and social group to map the distance between what they believe about consent and what actually happens when they exercise it.The survey questions were framed under four heads: consent, choice and the limits of love; the private sphere of family, marriage and control; unsafe worlds spanning public, professional and digital violations; and the building of a consent culture through education, law and accountability. The responses reveal how Indian women negotiate the simple act of saying `no' to partners, elders, bosses, strangers and screens.The good news first. Nearly four in five women-- across class, region and generation--agree that `no means no' under all circumstances, without exception. What they do not have is the social permission to act on it.Only about 36 per cent of women clearly say that consent given under pressure is not consent. The rest treat pressured agreement as consent in some form. The right to change one's mind splits the sample down the middle:

THE GAP BETWEEN KNOWING AND DOING

Consent discourse, as we term it today, emerged in the 1970s, primarily in the US. Analyses of gender-based violence unpacked the material, emotional, cultural and bodily control of women through patriarchy, leading to a new understanding of bodily autonomy. The phrase `no means no' appeared in this context. As the idea of female desire came into sharper focus, consent too evolved from refusal, or `no means no', to expressed desire and affirmative consent, or `yes means yes'. In India, this discourse emerged at a more particular juncture. The protests following the Delhi gang rape of 2012 brought diverse groups of people, many without experience of political engagement, on to the streets, and moved the question of sexual violence to the front pages. Notably, this may well have been the first public protest movement to transition from the streets to the internet, coinciding with the rise of social media.Social media's power to transmit messages to incredibly large numbers at speed, and its tools for quick creativity and campaignbuilding, were invigorating. It became a space for raising conversations and building connection. A number of initiatives and accounts focused on gender and sexuality proliferated. When #MeToo arrived, they were able to leverage these digital resources to sustain the issues. Consent discourse grew rapidly in these years. The story of this digital success, as well as its limitations, illuminates the overarching finding of the india today consent survey: that there is a significant gap between women's awareness of consent and their actual experience of it.Consent discourse, with its clear messaging of `no means no' and `yes means yes', was well suited to the conditions for social media virality. To gain traction, a message must conform to social media formats: small word counts, short videos and a simple, preferably one-point message, repeated often, as in advertising. When Amitabh Bachchan thundered `no means no' in the courtroom drama Pink (2016), it was celebrated as the mainstream penetration of a feminist message.Consent discourse, boiled down to its basics, could be `scaled up' by numerous players--from brands to NGOs to influencers--because in its common minimum form, no one will disagree with it. But is the bare minimum enough to imagine freedom? Social media numbers validate impact and make it feel like a politically fertile space. By delinking consent from other structural questions of autonomy and equality, it enabled the wide acceptance of consent as a `gender product', or a