Here is an example.
UK on rape
Sexual Offences Act 2003
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents
Spain on rape
Consent is defined in art. 178 of the Codigo Penal. "Sólo se entenderá que hay consentimiento cuando se haya manifestado libremente mediante actos que, en atención a las circunstancias del caso, expresen de manera clara la voluntad de la persona."
"It will only be understood that there is consent when it has been manifested freely via acts which in attention to the circumstances of the case, express clearly the will of the person".
If you understand legal wording well you can see that in the UK definition it is weighted to whether the aggressor can convince the court that he reasonably believed that the victim concentrated. In the Spanish definition, if there weren't clear acts that ANYONE would accept as manifesting consent, then no consent existed.
Here only yes is yes. Consent must be explicit. There, if the aggressor "reasonably believed it was yes", that is enough.
This is the sort of thing that I am talking about. The UK is far behind many EU countries on these sorts of issues, but it's citizens aren't seeing it because the media is full of scaremongering about small boats and scary immigrants desperate to go there and we'll they are of course desperate to go there because everything is wonderful. This is how propaganda works. Subtly.