Those caught up in the sexual revolution are always telling me oral consent is all that matters to make any sexual act licit.
Those who are believers in scientism are always telling me that anecdotal evidence is not to be trusted.
The problem is, these two groups often overlap. And what is oral consent other than anecdotal evidence? After all, an anecdote is
a short account of a particular incident or event, especially of an interesting or amusing nature. And a claim of oral consent is most certainly interesting, but not particularly definitive.
This is why I have said that without written consent, such as a marriage license, one should stay abstinent. Anything else, is too risky.
The end result is if consent is not written, it is not consent. Thus sex should be restricted to situations where there are contingency plans.
Contingency plans like "In sickness and in health, for richer or poorer, as long as we both shall live"
No Father wanting the best for his Daughter should accept anything less.