Do you think 'explicit consent' is required before sex?

You know, the safest thing for everyone would be to sign a contract before having sex. We are almost at the point where this is necessary....
I have never said 'yes you can have sex with me' to anyone I've had sex with. If I am there in the situation it is however obvious that I am participating.

I hate the idea of someone being pressured into sex, because that is WRONG! But if you never say 'no' or never pull away from the other person while you are 'embracing' and getting sexual, how is the other person to know that you are not doing this willingly?

I'm confused about the whole thing. From Trudeau's announcement to these latest details, I feel like there's something important missing but I don't know what it is. It's just... weird.

It sounds like a case of "buyers remorse". At least from the details here. If she can't stand up for herself and say no and let's herself get so swept up in not being able to stand up for herself, she has no business representing the public.

I'm a bit surprised at how many women have never given explicit consent to sex. You've never said, "Hey, let's go have sex"? Nobody has ever asked if you wanted to have sex and you've never replied, "Hell yes!"? Huh.

lol!  Can't say it ever happened that way to me!

I think explicit consent is ridiculous.

I thought this discussion was about two people who are actively participating in the process. I don't think you'll find anyone on here who disagrees that if one of the individuals is unconscious, it should be a no go.

I don't recall wording like that, no. Less specific, more insinuated, alluded to etc.

I've never given explicit consent in exactly those terms but my husband knows if I look at him a certain way and say 'get in that bedroom' then that's what I mean, he is free to say no anytime.
If the woman in this case did not say no did she give any other indications that she wasn't a willing partner?

Definitely. I also think that if you have a phrase you use with your partner, whatever it is, that's explicit consent too. I think more often than not, there is explicit consent in my marriage just because we kind of have those phrases that mean, "Hey, let's go have sex" without necessarily always saying it outright. 

There was this one time when I was flirting with someone, things went faster than either of us anticipated, and the other person stopped and kind of looked at me and said, hey, are you into this? and I guess I thought it was obvious but it really was nice to have had someone stop and say, hey, just making sure. I still remember that because it felt respectful without being overly formal. It was just that the relationship was new to both of us and nobody wanted to take advantage inappropriately.

I think the problem is that on the one hand, much of the time it's pretty obvious between established partners when there's consent and when there's not. But on the other, there are occasions when people feel like they need to be able to delineate what is consent and what isn't, because there is a question about whether one party or the other consented. That's what I see going on in the OP, a situation where consent isn't necessarily clear. Because there is explicit consent, there is explicit non-consent, and then there is a gray area in between that includes coercion, uncertainty, wishy-washiness, indecision, lack of communication, changing one's mind, and all kinds of other stuff that doesn't constitute either explicit consent or explicit non-consent. But when there is a question about whether there actually was consent, sometimes people feel a need to put the situation in one of the two clear categories. 

I think this is why explicit consent is useful in some situations, but the question isn't always helpful after the fact as evidenced by situations just like this. 

I think ultimately though, explicit consent isn't a substitute for communication, sensitivity, and respect between individuals. I think if you have those things, you will rarely have a problem with after-the-fact. 

I was pretty much believing her story about wanting to leave but being grabbed and forcefully held until I got to the line above. I don't think anyone who is so heavily intoxicated that they can't say no is going to be thinking of condoms let alone providing one.

Like others have said, I think there must be more to the story that led to the actions against these two MPs by the party leader.

I'm ok with that. Yes.

Why? Because in a lot of cases both parties have been drinking. I'm not ok with the idea that if a man and a woman are both drinking there is somehow more of a burden on the man when it comes to sexual contact. That's sexist to me and insulting to women.

People do things they regret when they get drunk. Sleeping with a man when you're drunk and regretting it doesn't mean you were raped.

Does it protect the man or does it put a higher burden on the man?