> If she doesn't know whether she genuinely consents to sex or not, then how is it morally acceptable to have sex with her?

Thing is, this is all a nonissue if your partner is enthusiastically into having sex with you.

So maybe more mutually fulfilling romps and less "well it was borderline but I did it anyway."

Yes consent isn't an issue when you assume your partner is consenting.

The problem is enthusiasm varies wildly. There are people I know whose sex would never be described as enthusiastic. There are lots of mild mannered anxious lovers out there. And I could see how it would be difficult for someone to judge the exact level of enthusiasm in a new lover.

Convincing herself it was consensual after doesn't mean she consented during.

What does consent mean to you? Not saying no? Or an enthusiastic yes?

Not saying no.

I've had plenty of sex I wasn't super enthusiastic about but I wouldn't consider any of those exes rapists because I didn't say no.

When you're in a relationship for years not all of the sex is super enthusiastic. There were times when I had sex because I didn't want to hurt their feelings or they traveled a distance to see me.

And I'm sure there were times when my partner wasn't that in the mood and had sex with me for reasons besides they really wanted to have sex at that moment.

Personally outside of established relationships I always waited for the other person to make the first move because I was always so terrified of kissing someone who didn't want to kissed.

But talking with plenty of men and women over my life the majority of sex does not involve an unambiguous yes.

The problem I see with your definition of "Not saying no." is that it leaves a lot of ambiguity and requires a lot of caveats.

An unconscious person can't say no, but no one would agree they are consenting. What about someone intoxicated or under the influence? What about someone who is scared? Where does "I'd rather not", or "If I have to" fit? (Both of those seem to imply not consenting to me.)

Whereas a yes provides an unambiguous signal.

> Personally outside of established relationships I always waited for the other person to make the first move because I was always so terrified of kissing someone who didn't want to kissed.

I've moved to asking, "Can I kiss you?" or "Can I hug you?" before making a move like that. Simple, brief, and once you have an answer you forget it was even asked.

The problem with defining consensual sex as both parties saying yes explicitly and unambiguously is it ignores the world around us. An enormous amount of sex and sexual acts that are happening today without explicit affirmative verbal consent. Your definition classifies all of those sex acts as non-consensual. Should we prosecute people for rape? I imagine almost everyone has had at least one sexual act where they did not explicitly ask their partner if they wanted to have sex. This would make almost everyone a rapist.

Should we be teaching people to just lay their quietly if a sexual encounter is starting they don't want to be a part of and hopefully the other party will ask them for their consent at some point?

> I've moved to asking, "Can I kiss you?" or "Can I hug you?" before making a move like that. Simple, brief, and once you have an answer you forget it was even asked.

Can I kiss you, can I touch your thigh, I can tough your boob over the shirt, can I tough your genitals over the pants, you can touch my genital under my pants but over my underwear. If each sexual escalation requires consent that's a lot of question asking and responses for a typical sex act. And maybe that how the world should work, but it's definitely not how the world is working right now.