*Will gladly remove if this is not the best subreddit for the question.
In the past week or so, vis a vis the Bill Cosby allegations and renewed focus on allegations against Bill Clinton, I've seen people state that 'the idea of consent is relatively new'.
This sounds like some Internet hot-taking to me. I recently listened to the In Our Time podcast on Tristan and Iseult (around the 18:10 mark) one of the guests said that during the time of the poem coming to prominence the Christian church was changing its policies on marriage and began requiring a woman's consent to marry. Obviously marriage is different than sex, but this seems like a token against the idea that consent is a new idea.
So, how new is the idea of sexual consent?
It's not necessarily the concept of sexual consent that is "new", so much as what constitutes consent and who has the right to refuse and under what circumstances that have recently evolved. Prior to the sexual revolution, the increased discussion of and visibility of rape in the public sphere due in part to the women's movement, especially the Second Wave of feminism in the 1960's and 70's, women whose behavior was considered "bad", or who were marginalized by society, had little-to-no chance of getting justice for sexual assault, especially if the perpetrator was socially influential.
A woman's profession, conduct, or sexual history were once considered germane evidence to any trial about rape, and "Rape Shield Laws" were passed specifically to preclude defense attorneys putting the victim on trial ("She's had a lot of boyfriends!" "She dresses provocatively!" "She is a sex-worker!", etc) These kinds of laws were passed on a state-by-state basis in the 70's and 80's, and the 1994 VAWA included language about this at a federal level.
The FBI's definition of the crime of rape was, prior to 2013, “The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.” You can see what this leaves out: any non-female victims, and women who were coerced, incapacitated, or otherwise forced into a sexual situation without necessarily being assaulted physically. The new definition is: “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” This is more clear than "carnal knowledge" (which may or may not include forced oral sex, for example), and includes all victims, regardless of gender expression.
Another recent legal change: Spousal rape as a legal concept. Prior to the 1970's, it was legally impossible in nigh-every human society to prosecute anyone for raping a spouse. Marital vows were conceived of as granting unlimited and un-revokeable sexual consent. It wasn't until 1993 that spousal rape was defined as a crime in all 50 states, and in some states, the conditions to prove spousal rape are different from other cases (a weapon or explicit violence must be a factor for prosecution in several states.)
Taken together, I think these examples help paint a picture of how the legal concept of rape and societal understanding of rape and sexual consent have changed drastically since the 1960's, and continue to evolve. I believe it is this on-going social change that is being referenced by the phrase you mentioned.
To add on to some of what /u/azdac7 has mentioned, If you have laws against rape & laws outlining what "sexual consent" is then more often than not there will be fringe groups trying to redefine what "consent" means...
In Britain from 1974 - 1984 there was a group called the "Paedophile Information Exchange" whereby the aim of their group according to then chairman Keith Hose was to
alleviate the suffering of many adults and children" by campaigning to abolish the age of consent thus legalising sex between adults and children.
~ Images from their manifesto explaining this quote
They wanted the law to view children as young as 3/4 as consenting bodies to carnal pleasure. PIE also tried to involve adults in their plea asking "in legal difficulties concerning sexual acts with consenting 'under age' partners" ~ basically asking the parent's permission to veto their child's decision concerning sex if their decision was no.
Even though understandably a lot of the public were outraged by PIE's ideas because of the way they presented it (as the sexual liberation of children) many bodies were behind PIE. Another tactic used by PIE were to equal it's cause with the more deserving LGBTQ one & thus certain bodies (e.g. Campaign for Homosexual Equality) were behind them.
PIE went on until 1984 when it began to crumble from under itself as members were being exposed & jailed; Geoffrey Prime, British spy was imprisoned in '82 for disclosing information about the USSR to GCHQ & vice versa as well as his offences on underage girls.
In 1983, Headmaster Charles Oxley & police informant was jailed for his involvement with PIE dismissing that he was ever affiliated with the group except to bring the "evil men to justice" for the police.
Sources/Further Reading:
De Castella. T & Heyden T (2014); How did the pro-paedophile group PIE exist openly for 10 years?
Doward. J (2014); How paedophiles infiltrated the left and hijacked the fight for civil rights
Petrie. G (1983); Headmaster was police spy in child-sex group
Wilson. D. G. & Cox. N. D. (1981); The Child Lovers: A Study Of Paedophiles In Society
Channel 4's The Paedophile Next Door (available on all 4)
If you have any other questions feel free to ask :)
