It's a bit of a minefield, honestly. I've read a lot where it's done badly – characters acting completely out of, well, character, just to fit a certain scenario. The good ones, though, they make consent part of the narrative tension itself. Like, maybe one character has a past trauma, and the other is painfully aware of it, so every step is a negotiation. It's not just a 'yes' or 'no' checkbox at the start; it's woven into the dialogue, the hesitations, the checking in. I read one for 'The Magnus Archives' where Jon's paranoia and Martin's care meant every intimate moment was preceded by this quiet, 'Is this alright?' that felt so true to them.
Those stories often spend more time on the emotional build-up than the act itself. The maturity isn't just in the explicit content, it's in showing the trust being built or repaired. When it's handled thoughtfully, it can actually deepen the ship for me, because it addresses power dynamics the original text might gloss over. I tend to back-button fast if a story uses dubious consent as a shortcut for passion—it just leaves a sour taste and usually means the character voices are off.
For me, the tag system on Archive of Our Own is crucial here. 'Dead Dove: Do Not Eat' tells me the author isn't presenting a healthy dynamic as aspirational, which changes how I engage. It's the ones tagged 'Consensual' but written without any of the nuance that frustrate me more.