because she never gave consent in the first place exactly.
and to suggest that women need to somehow let men know that they aren't sexually interested in them sounds stupid to me.
default position should be "does not consent."
GallicIsCharlie
guiding somebody else's penis into one's own body
That's a description of an act.
but i am a little tired of trying to address your pseudo intelligent questions
There was nothing intelligent about that question.
To answer your original question.
in my opinion.
yes you would be completely unreasonable to send that letter.
Not because it'd cost an obscene amount in postage.
Not because I don't believe that the issue of consent is important.
Not because I feel all hurt that you could think that a man could possibly do something like that.
Not because it infers that all men could do something like that.
Not because you think that your husband couldn't do that. whether his name is Nigel or otherwise.
But because the entire premise of your letter (in my view) subtly re-enforces that a woman is consenting, unless she says no.
Which I fundamentally disagree with.
Which I think is a dangerous thing to re-enforce in any way shape or form. (even if you think you're you're making a really witty and sardonic point [wittily mocking rape, but not making a joke honest])
I'd rather you sent a letter reminding all men that a person is only consenting if they say yes. (in fact not only would I not be offended to receive such a letter but I'd nail such a notices to trees all over town!)
And once people have got that not so difficult to grasp concept into their heads then we can expand the concept to talk about situations in which consent can't be given, due to being drunk, or intimidation etc.
If that makes me an arrogant fucker, then I'm pleased. and I'll teach my kids to be arrogant fuckers as well.