Can consent be retroactive and withdrawable?

Question

Can someone retroactively withdraw consent, converting what had previously been permissible into an impermissible action?

Is there a philosophy in which consent can be withdrawn after the action?

Answer 1

I mean in terms of the concept, it's only really consent if it is present at every present moment. So if consent is given before an action and withdrawn right before or even during the action then it is presently not given and the action should stop right then and there. Whether a law cares for consent to that extend is a different question. Like a purchase might be finalized at some point regardless of consent.

Revoking consent after the fact is generally difficult because it might be difficult or even downright impossible to stop the action that has already happened or to make it undone. Not to mention that the other party acted in assumption of consent. So it's highly unlike that this could be retroactively revoked, as it would make any interaction potentially impermissible and thus would crush any concept of a reliable ethics and legal system. You should at least theoretically be able to know if the action you're doing is permissible.

Though that makes the assumption of valid consent and good faith acting. But you could have received invalid consent and acted in bad faith. You could lie about the nature of the action to lure them in a situation where the withdrawal of consent is not technically possible. I don't know, turn a harmless flight into parachuting by pretending the engine collapsed when it didn't. You know there would be no consent under normal circumstances, but you removed the alternatives so "consent" is given under false pretenses. Or idk Bondage and chocking without the ability to utter safe words or show disagreement. There might have been consent under falls expectations but during the act the ability to voice refusal and lack of consent is removed, despite still being crucial for it being consensual. Another one that I found would be rape by deception and impersonation: https://verdict.justia.com/2013/05/01/rape-by-deception-rape-by-impersonation-and-a-new-california-bill

So idk sneaking in on a person pretending to be their SO/spouse/whatever and taking advantage of a consent that was not deliberately extended to you.

So that in the present moment you might have had a consent with or at least acceptance or tolerance of the action itself, but only due to the false assumption of circumstances which would not have been present if the full information were known. So in those cases the malicious manipulation could even result in a valid revocation of consent after the fact or if you conceptually don't like this retroactive form, you could argue that it's not revoking the consent as much as articulating that it was never present to begin with, so to say invalid.

Answer 2

In contract law, the response of the offeree (the second party to the intended contract) makes the difference. When the offeree has acted in reliance on an offer, and changed position because of the offer, then it is a lot more likely that a court will find that a contract existed. So the person giving consent (by making the offer) could no longer withdraw that consent.

In general, this principle holds true. If someone gave consent to something in the abstract, but no one else in the world responded to it, then yes, that person could withdraw consent, and the temporarily permissible action would become impermissible.