What Everyone Needs to Know About Consent, Impairment, and Safety
(PRUnderground) May 1st, 2026
Recent research on campus sexual assault has painted a grim and frightening picture. Much of the assault is perpetrated by someone known to the victim, such as a date or an acquaintance at a party. And a significant portion of the cases involve the use of drugs or alcohol. Despite decades of awareness efforts, these patterns have proven stubbornly persistent. This article examines why awareness campaigns alone are not enough to prevent sexual violence, how structural and behavioral gaps continue to enable it, and what can be done to reduce risk and improve accountability.
THE BIG PICTURE
Why Sexual Violence Is Still Happening—and Why Awareness Alone Isn’t Enough
April 2026 marks the 25th anniversary of Sexual Assault Awareness Month (SAAM). The National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC), which coordinates and provides educational materials for SAAM every year, has chosen the theme “25 Years Stronger: Looking Back, Moving Forward”—a call to celebration of our progress, but also an honest look at what still needs to change. Things are moving for consent education.
Awareness of the issue is at an all-time high. Universities have implemented affirmative consent policies, workplace harassment is more openly discussed, and survivors are believed at higher rates than before. Yet prevalence rates remain stubborn—suggesting awareness has not translated into meaningful behavioral or systemic change. Two of the most cited drivers, objectification and consent, are often treated as separate issues. In practice, they are deeply interconnected and reinforce one another.
PROBLEM #1
The Consent Gap: What We Teach vs. How People Actually Communicate
The Shift to Affirmative Consent—and What’s Still Missing
You may have heard of affirmative consent. California was the first state to mandate that universities adopt a “yes means yes” standard in 2014. Since then, numerous states and campuses have followed California’s lead. Affirmative consent, better characterized as an “enthusiastic yes,” is a positive step forward from the outdated “no means no” approach. However, existing research has identified limitations in legislation and/or policies regarding consent and questioned the practicality and reality of how this model functions in practice.
What the CDC found: The 2023 Youth Risk Behavior Survey—the first national study to specifically measure consent-seeking behavior among high school students—found that while most young people support the idea of affirmative consent, they tend to communicate through nonverbal and indirect cues rather than explicit verbal agreement (CDC, 2024). Many female-identified students reported using what researchers describe as “no response signals”—passively allowing sexual activity without actively agreeing to it—as their way of signaling consent.
Ambiguity is not neutral. It creates the conditions for misunderstanding and, in some cases, deliberate exploitation. Research has documented what one team of scholars called a “substantial gap between how college students currently communicate consent—with subtle, implicit, nonverbal cues—and what is being proposed via affirmative consent policies” (Orchowski et al., 2023). Within that gap, perpetrators can rely on plausible deniability.
Why Students Avoid Explicit Consent Conversations
When it comes to college students, the conversation about consent often goes untapped. This is not because students aren’t interested in learning more, but because they avoid talking about it altogether due to the awkwardness or sensitivity of the subject.
• The fallacy that taking precautions for safe sex will somehow ruin the moment, be offensive to a partner, show a lack of faith in them, etc.
• Reliance on “code words” or assumed mutual understanding.
• Cultural scripts that prevent men and women from expressing their true needs and desires.
• Lack of practice with explicit sexual communication.
For Parents: If your college student has had sex education focused primarily on abstinence or “no means no” messaging, they may not have been equipped with the communication skills that affirmative consent requires. Consider having a direct, non-judgmental conversation about what clear consent actually looks and sounds like—and what to do if a situation feels ambiguous or uncomfortable.
PROBLEM #2
Impairment: The Most Common Context for Campus Sexual Assault, and the Least Discussed
What the Research Tells Us
Drug- and alcohol-facilitated sexual assault (DFSA) is defined in research literature as an act of sexual violence where the victim’s ability to consent is affected by alcohol and/or drugs. The victim may have voluntarily consumed alcohol/drugs, unknowingly consumed alcohol/drugs, or a combination of the two (Skov et al., 2025; Recalde-Esnoz et al., 2024).
The Legal and Ethical Line Is Clear—Even When the Situation Feels Gray
The underlying principle of consent and impairment is straightforward: a person who is substantially impaired cannot provide consent. This is true in legal contexts and under the ethical standards that should guide behavior. It is often misunderstood that someone who is impaired but not visibly incapacitated can still consent. This is incorrect. Once a person becomes incapacitated, consent is no longer present.
Perpetrators often exploit ambiguity—prior contact, alcohol, or appearing un-impaired themselves—to manufacture doubt about what happened.
The difference between opportunistic and predatory DFSA: Researchers distinguish between opportunistic DFSA—where a perpetrator takes advantage of someone who has voluntarily become intoxicated—and predatory DFSA, where a perpetrator deliberately administers substances to a victim without their knowledge. Both are forms of sexual violence. The second is also a felony in every U.S. state. Recent forensic research underscores that predatory DFSA frequently follows a recognizable pattern, and that the same perpetrator is often responsible for multiple assaults (Recalde-Esnoz et al., 2024).
Why Impaired Assault Is So Rarely Reported and Prosecuted
Victims of drug- or alcohol-facilitated assault face significant barriers to reporting. Many feel partially responsible because they had been drinking, fear they won’t be believed, and worry an investigation will scrutinize them as much as the offender. Legal outcomes reflect this: research documents reduced perceptions of guilt for drunkenness defense cases, and jurors are less likely to convict when the victim had been drinking voluntarily (Ison et al., 2024). These dynamics create structural barriers to accountability, allowing perpetrators who rely on impairment to operate with reduced risk of consequence.
For Campus Administrators: Review whether your institution’s reporting procedures are accessible to students who may be uncertain about what happened, who may not have clear memories, or who are afraid of not being believed because of their own alcohol use. A survivor-centered intake process does not require a complete and linear account before taking a report seriously.
A RECENT CASE STUDY
What the Stephen Matthews Case Tells Us About Platform Responsibility
What Happened
In October 2024, Denver, Colorado, physician Stephen Matthews was convicted of 35 counts of either drugging and/or sexually assaulting 11 women he met through dating apps and websites from 2019 to 2023. Matthews received a sentence of 158 years to life in prison (The 19th News, December 2025).
In December 2025, six of the victims filed a civil lawsuit in Denver District Court against Match Group, Inc., the parent company of dating apps Hinge and Tinder. The lawsuit alleges that even though Match Group had been notified of Matthews’ conduct as early as September 2020, it took no action to remove or suspend him from its platforms.
The Platform Failure
The filing argues a series of institutional failures by Match Group that allowed Matthews to continue operating for years after he was first reported:
• First report ignored. A woman he assaulted in September 2020 reported him to Hinge the next day. She was told steps would be taken. Three months later, Hinge recommended him to her again as a potential match (CPR News, December 2025).
• Reporting made impossible. When a user unmatched with someone on Hinge, the option to report that person disappeared entirely—making it impossible to report after the fact (The 19th News, December 2025).
• Bans were ineffective. Product testing confirmed that as recently as February 2025, banned users could rejoin Hinge with the exact same name, birthday, and profile photo as their banned account (The 19th News, December 2025).
Why this matters beyond dating apps: The Matthews case illustrates a dynamic not unique to dating platforms: when organizations receive reports of sexual violence and fail to act—due to bureaucratic indifference, reputational concern, or inadequate systems—serial perpetrators continue to have access to victims. The central question for any institution is clear: if a report were made tomorrow, would existing systems meaningfully reduce the risk of further harm?
WHAT YOU CAN DO
Practical Steps for Every Audience
For College Students
• Talk before and during. Practice explicit consent out loud, every time. It gets easier and protects both partners.
• Look out for each other. If a friend is heavily intoxicated, stay with them. Incapacitated people cannot consent.
• Know what’s available. Know your campus resources before you need them: Title IX coordinator, crisis line, nearest sexual assault center.
• Use safety practices with online dates. Tell someone where you’re going. Check in. Meet in public first.
• Bystander action saves lives. If someone seems confused, unusually impaired, or pressured, ask if they’re okay. You don’t have to be certain something is wrong to check in.
For Parents
• Have the real conversation. Ask your student what they know about affirmative consent—not as a quiz, but to open a conversation many have never had with a trusted adult.
• Normalize talking about alcohol and safety. Discuss the specific risk of impairment and the difference between an ambiguous situation and a violation.
• Be a safe person to call. Make sure they can call you without fear of anger or judgment. Fear of a parent’s reaction is one reason students don’t disclose.
• Talk about resources before they leave. Counseling center, Title IX office, and the campus or local sexual assault crisis line.
For Campus Administrators
• Audit your reporting infrastructure. Are your systems accessible to students who can’t provide a complete account or who fear disbelief due to their own alcohol use?
• Go beyond the basics. Consent education that ignores power dynamics, gendered scripts, and impairment is insufficient. Work with experts to update programming.
• Invest in bystander training. Programs that teach students to recognize and interrupt concerning situations are among the most evidence-supported prevention tools available.
• Understand the institutional stakes. Survivors whose reports are mishandled are more likely to leave the institution, suffer lasting mental health consequences, and not recommend the school.
For HR and Workplace Professionals
• Alcohol at work events is a liability. Company events with alcohol create the same risk dynamics campus research documents. Make conduct expectations clear, and ensure leadership models them.
• Train for trauma-informed intake. HR should be able to take a report without requiring a complete timeline or physical evidence. Trauma and impairment both affect memory.
• Pattern recognition is prevention. Multiple complaints about the same person, similar reports across time—act on the pattern. Serial perpetrators rely on institutional reluctance to connect the dots.
FINAL THOUGHTS
Twenty-Five Years In: What Moving Forward Looks Like
After 25 years of SAAM, both progress and persistent gaps deserve recognition. Survivors are believed at higher rates, consent is part of the national conversation, and institutions are building policies and procedures.
The next phase requires consistent practice, not just awareness. The Matthews case is not an outlier—it is a pattern playing out in plain sight, where warning signs were visible and the systems meant to act on them did not. Moving forward means closing that gap with clearer communication around consent, sharper understanding of impairment, and institutions willing to act before harm escalates. When systems fail to act, the harm is not just possible—it is predictable.
Every action matters. Every voice counts.
— NSVRC, SAAM 2026
KEY RESOURCES
Where to Get Help or Learn More
National Sexual Assault Hotline
1-800-656-HOPE (4673) | rainn.org
NSVRC / SAAM 2026
nsvrc.org/saam-2026
Campus Title IX Resources
Find your Title IX coordinator at your institution’s student affairs or compliance office.
Know Your IX
knowyourix.org | Student rights under Title IX
SOURCES
References
Basile, K. C., Smith, S. G., Kresnow, M., Khatiwada, S., & Leemis, R. W. (2022). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2016/2017 report on sexual violence. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
C.A. Goldberg Law. (2026, January 20). Lawsuit against Match Group for drugging and sexual assault filed in CO. https://www.cagoldberglaw.com/lawsuit-against-match-group-for-drugging-and-sexual-assault-filed-in-co/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2024). Asking for verbal sexual consent and experiences of sexual violence and sexual behaviors among high school students — Youth Risk Behavior Survey, United States, 2023. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 73(Suppl-4). https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/su/su7304a7.htm
CPR News. (2025, December 17). Hinge and Tinder ignored Denver women’s complaints about serial rapist, lawsuit alleges. Colorado Public Radio.
Dugdale, E. E., Harjani, H., Harrison, C., & Kaur, G. (2025, December 16). Women drugged and raped by Colorado cardiologist on dates sue Tinder and Hinge. The 19th News. https://19thnews.org/2025/12/dating-app-rape-survivors-lawsuit-hinge-tinder/
Ison, J., Wilson, I., Forsdike, K., Theobald, J., Wilson, E., Laslett, A.-M., & Hooker, L. (2024). A scoping review of global literature on alcohol and other drug-facilitated sexual violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380241297349
Jane Doe 1-6 v. IAC, Inc., Match Group, Inc., Hinge, Inc., Tinder, LLC, and Stephen Matthews. (2025, December 16). Denver District Court, Colorado.
Laha, A. (2025). The role of consent education in preventing sexual violence and promoting healthy relationships. Journal of Prevention. https://doi.org/10.1177/26318318251400035
Lynam, M., Keatley, D., Maker, G., & Coumbaros, J. (2024). The prevalence of selected licit and illicit drugs in drug facilitated sexual assaults. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 9, 100545.
National Sexual Violence Resource Center. (2025). Statistics in-depth. https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics/statistics-depth/
National Sexual Violence Resource Center. (2026). About SAAM 2026: 25 Years Stronger: Looking Back, Moving Forward. https://www.nsvrc.org/about-saam-2026/
Orchowski, L. M., Bogen, K. W., & Rizvi, S. (2023). Communication about sexual consent and refusal. PMC. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10195043/
Recalde-Esnoz, I., Prego-Meleiro, P., Montalvo, G., & Del Castillo, H. (2024). Drug-facilitated sexual assault: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 25(3), 1814–1825.
Richer, L. A., et al. (2015). Characterizing drug-facilitated sexual assault subtypes and treatment engagement of victims at a hospital-based rape treatment center. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(10), 1524–1542.
Skov, K., Johansen, S. S., Linnet, K., & Nielsen, M. K. K. (2025). Characteristics of drug-facilitated sexual assault (DFSA): An observational study at a Danish sexual assault center. International Journal of Legal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-025-03646-4
Sexes. (2024). Youth voices participating in the improvement of sexual consent awareness campaigns. Sexes, 5(4), 579–595. https://doi.org/10.3390/sexes5040038
If you or someone you know has been affected by sexual violence, help is available 24/7.
National Sexual Assault Hotline: 1-800-656-HOPE | rainn.org
About Aegis Consent
About Aegis Consent
Aegis Consent is the world’s first fully AI-powered affirmative consent solution. It uses a combination of voice recognition, video and integrated documentation to establish and confirm understanding and agreement in the moment. The solution addresses a national crisis, in which over 80% of sexual assaults are never reported, by making consent clear, recorded, and actionable. Aegis engages with universities, sororities, fraternities, and community groups through the company’s Campus Ambassador program and works alongside the company’s sister non-profit, Protect Alliance for Safety and Security (PASS), through innovative education and advocacy initiatives.
The post Aegis Consent: When Silence Becomes Coercion first appeared on
Original Press Release.