I still think they’re a minority, but a large and active minority. In my life I’ve been involved in some fairly sketchy scenes, and there are no shortage of predators in this world.
Maybe there are a few who are just pushy and don’t get it. If it saves even one person from rape, not a total loss. But I think the main goal of the PSAs like these are not so much to educate would-be rapists as to chip away at rape culture itself. There are a lot of women who don’t feel safe saying no. The more the message is out there that that’s their prerogative, the better their ability to exercise it.
I agree with that last notion. I feel like as long as there is a discrepancy on how consent is suppose to be, the confident one will win. And if ones experience rewards aggression, it becomes harder to convince otherwise.
That might also be a reason, but I think the main reason is that they don’t want to have to face the possibility that the man in their lives doesn’t believe/support them. That would really bring their world crashing down, so it’s better to just not open that door.
It sounds like at least some people here think the main problem is with two people who have both chosen to become heavily intoxicated and therefore might think they mean yes but really they’re too incapacitated to make a real choice.
That’s not really the main problem. Sure, that happens all the time, but that’s not when (the vast majority of) women wake up realizing they’ve been raped.
It’s when the man has gone out of his way to find (possibly even causing) a woman to be more incapacitated than he is in order to maintain control over her. He might be slightly drunk, but he’s made sure she’s had 4 doubles, or spiked her drink in some way. That’s a much bigger problem.
Are you seriously saying government coercion is the same as consent?
For me, if the government says I and a consenting potential sexual partner can’t say yes then it’s wrong. If a sexual partner says I can’t say no it’s also wrong.
The issue is removal of personal choice. A rejected person can always fall back on Mrs Palm, consent is easy to work out in that relationship.
I hope you don’t mean me. I made an effort to repeatedly differentiate between the main problem of rapists using alcohol as a weapon and the edge cases to which I was referring and which do grab attention (usually as misapprehended ammunition for hysterical red pill types) from time to time.
I wasn’t responding to a particular post or poster, just the sense I was getting that the conversation in general was weighted toward talking about mutual lowering of inhibitions.
Well, I did harp on about that for a while. I still feel like the implications of those edge cases are far reaching and harrowing in and of themselves but obviously not as much of a problem as rapists for whom any form of consent is ignored.
Insofar as my discussion centred around awareness of consent.
That was mainly because someone brought up the mutual intoxication question early in the thread and it spurred a discussion of it.
IMHO, the deliberate incapacitation of someone for the purposes of sex is straight-up rape; and, though the rapist might think of themselves as a “player”, they’re a sexual predator whose only limit is what they can get away with, which is why I believe most predators who would deliberately incapacitate a woman would also take her by physical force, and probably have at some point, because they can get away with it. As @anon61221983 said, they think they’re entitled to sex, and see nothing wrong with raping women, hence sociopaths.
Mutual intoxication can lead to instances where consent isn’t meaningful, but I don’t think it means sex under those circumstances is mutual rape.
I don’t know which occurs more frequently, but I think both are extremely common. Though I see you’re point. In the latter case they may regret the decision, but in the former, the woman comes to realizing she’s been raped. I do think consent culture should address both.
