English: In the United States, some states recognize non-penetrative sex acts (contact such as fondling or touching a person's intimate parts, or exposure of a body or sexual activity) without consent by the victim and without the use of force by the perpetrator as a crime. Other states do not recognize this as a crime; their laws stipulate that the perpetrator must have used some kind of force (physical violence (that results in demonstrable physical injury), threats against the victim or a third party, or some other form of coercion) in order for such nonconsensual non-penetrative sex to amount to a crime.

Not shown: the United States Code, the Uniform Code of Military Justice and American Samoa recognize nonconsensual non-penetrative sex acts as a crime.

Commentary

In some states' laws, consent does play a role, but in a limited manner or in exceptional circumstances, so that in the end the legislation remains coercion-based.

• Indiana: The Indiana Code does not define consent (§35-31.5-2). Consent only comes up in situations where the other person is deemed incapable of consenting (§35-42-4-1 to 14); there is no freely given or affirmative consent.^[1][2]
• New Jersey: The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice only gives a general description of consent, and cases in which a person is incapable of (effectively) consenting in § 2C:2-10.^[3][4] However, State v. Cuni (1999) determined that a defendant must demonstrate the presence of "affirmative and freely-given permission..." on the part of a putative victim of sexual assault.^[4] Under '§ 2C:14-2 Sexual assault', 'sexual assault' or 'aggravated sexual assault' occurs (depending on whether 'severe personal injury is sustained by the victim') whenever '[t]he actor commits the act [of sexual penetration of another person] using coercion or without the victim's affirmative and freely-given permission' (a.(6) and c.(1)).^[3] The same applies to (aggravated) criminal sexual contact (§ 2C:14-3).^[3]
• Tennessee: The Tennessee Code does not provide a definition for consent,^[5] but a lack of consent is sufficient to commit 'rape' (also called 'unlawful sexual penetration') under §39-13-501 or 'sexual battery' (also called 'unlawful sexual contact') under §39-13-505, which in identical wording state: 'The sexual penetration/contact is accomplished without the consent of the victim and the defendant knows or has reason to know at the time of the contact that the victim did not consent.'^[6][7]
• Vermont: Under 13 Vermont Statutes Annotated (V.S.A.) § 3251, 'sexual acts' can be penetrative or non-penetrative. Act 68, effective since July 1, 2021, redefined sexual consent in 13 V.S.A. § 3251 as "the affirmative, unambiguous, and voluntary agreement to engage in a sexual act, which can be revoked at any time."^[8][9][10] Reference to compulsion was removed from the definition of sexual assault 13 V.S.A. § 3252, which henceforth stated: 'No person shall engage in a sexual act with another person: (1) without the consent of the other person;...'^[11][12] A person is deemed unable to consent if they are unable to understand the nature of the conduct, physically incapable of resisting, declining participation in, or communicating unwillingness to engage in the conduct (e.g. when they are sleeping or unconscious), or lack the mental ability to communicate a decision about whether to engage in the conduct.^[8]
• Washington: The Washington Criminal Code §9A.44.010(7) states: '"Consent" means that at the time of the act of sexual intercourse or sexual contact there are actual words or conduct indicating freely given agreement to have sexual intercourse or sexual contact.'^[13] However, freely given consent plays no role in non-penetrative sexual acts; under §9A.44.100, 'indecent liberties' can only be committed 'by forcible compulsion' or against people deemed incapable of consenting.^[14]