WIBU to consider writing to every man in the world

[TheRealAmandaClarke]

To inform them all (probably leave Dh out of the round robin) that I do not want to have sex with them unless and until further formal notice from me?

As it seems that there is such confusion among so many people about the nature of consent I want to avoid putting any of them in the terribly awkward position of wondering whether simply being in the same room as them means they are invited to stick their dick in me.
So is that an unreasonable proposition?

Talkinginthedark "Just staggered by the number of posters who just didn't get this. WTF? I know this is AIBU, but still..."
Got it. Didn't like it.

I know a number of virtual translators prepared to work on thought experiments for free?

Then you didn't get it, Tiggy. Pity.

Tiggy, there's an uninformed minority who think men in childcare have dodgy intentions.

If there was a public information campaign about this writing to everyone in the country, surely you'd think "yeah, I know that" but you wouldn't find it offensive.

If the campaign was telling everybody to stop thinking all men in childcare are perverts, It would be wrong. I wouldn't want to label everybody.

The OP's message should be "Rapists, stop raping", not "Men, stop raping".

Have discussed this with DH.

He thinks it's corking, would you like his email address, he's looking forward to his copy

However, he understands that the message isn't "Men - stop raping" it's "Men who are rapists - stop raping, and all other men who aren't rapists; go about your day"

I know, it's bonkers As I walk, child and dog free, around town I pass dozens of signs instructing me on where to drive, how to park, what to do with my children, how to control my dog and where to dispose of its poo. I also pass lots of instructions on how to spend money I do not have.
Funnily enough, I ignore them all because I know they aren't relevant for me.
Am I missing something? Should I be mightily pissed off that people are giving me information I don't need?

Thinking about this further, Amanda, I can only conclude that Tiggy & co actually do fancy the pants of you and are distressed to hear you're unavailable

I thought it was 'anyone - please don't accuse me of having consented to be raped' i.e. a cover-all clause that the OP does not want to have sex with anyone but her DP whether she is drunk, behaving in a flirty manner, walking around on her own, wearing a short skirt or doing anything which could be considered putting herself at risk (which is pretty much anything). I doubt she has a high enough opinion of rapists to consider that they will be open to negotiation. A sort of 'shoplifters will be prosecuted'. By addressing men she is just identifying the simplest common characteristic of almost all rapists. There is probably no other realistic way of narrowing it down further. for the sake of her own sanity she probably has to assume that her DP is not a rapist, and if he is they will probably need a more complicated contract in place. Sorry to speak for you OP. And repeating points that have been made ad nauseum.

I don't think we are ever going to agree then, Tiggy, because I don't find drink drive campaigns offensive even though I don't drink and drive, or DV posters in changing rooms, although I'm not a victim.

Good points, thanks gallic and alice

Goodness. All the letter does is inform a man of my absence of consent to sex.
It does not say "don't rape me" (what would be the point?)
It says "understand that unless I actually explicitly consent I am not consenting"
This wouldn't bother anyone. Surely.
A rapist wouldn't adhere to it
Someone who didnt want to have sex with me would be unaffected. I am not saying that anyone does want to have sex with me am i?
And anyone who wanted to have sex could just, well, go about it in the polite way.
Sorted.

it hasn't got anything to do with the individual men receiving the letters. the OP is making sure that, should she be raped, no one has any room to say she did not inform her rapist that she did not consent

she's not even trying to avoid being raped (how could you?)

she is trying, should she be raped, to avoid being accused of not making it clear that she did not consent

i can't believe anyone has to spell this out

the idea is SUPPOSED to be ridiculous

it is SUPPOSED to be farcical

it is SUPPOSED to be provocative

because apparently, there are a hell of a lot of people who seem to think that whatever a woman does, if she claims she was raped she must have given her rapist some indication that she wanted to ahve sex with him

the OP is simply taking this concept and suggesting a ridiculous, unworkable solution, to highlight how dimwitted and insulting those rape apologists are

it's not supposed to be hilariously funny. it is saying "what do i need to do to show that i do not consent unless i make it explicitly clear? what would be enough evidence of non-consent? would this be enough for you if you were on the jury? a journalist or commentator? a member of the public?"

the fact that individual men are insulted by this is ridiculous. get angry with the men who rape, and the people who excuse them - they are the ones insulting you

Amanda YANBU and I am a bit gobsmacked that so many people are misunderstanding what you're saying.The accusations of having a 'big ego' and 'being full of yourself' are particularly strange.

OTOH, if I understand them correctly, because I'm unattractive, flat chested and now the wrong side of 50, I am now totally safe from would-be rapists.

Am loving EBear's interpretive dance suggestion. Just loving it.

Now there's an example of someone who actually got it.

LadyGlen

I am "gobsmacked" about many things on his thread one of them is that posters are apparently not aloud to be offended as it seems to offend other posters.

Oh, anyone is allowed to be offended (whatever that means) but it really only makes sense for people who believe women are complicit in their own rapes to be offended. And we are all very glad to offend them.

well quite. and all those people who were offended as alice describes and so responded with "you're too arrogant to be raped". i think it's ok to be offended by that

Maybe MNHQ could publish an list of what posters are allowed to be offended by?

Thinking about this further, Amanda, I can only conclude that Tiggy & co actually do fancy the pants of you and are distressed to hear you're unavailable

Can I just say that I fantasise about the firm smack of a man who'll tell me what to say and what I mean?

Or would that be taking the piss?

Boney are you more offended by the OP's pointing out how daft rape apologists' reasoning is than you are about the rape apologists' views themselves?

Petula

Of course the rape apologists' views are more offensive than the ops' but that doesn't mean that all of those responding in a way differing from the way that the op (and others) expected them too have "offensive" opinions or that they are rape apologists.

TBH I totally misinterpreted what the Op was trying to say.

When I read her original post I thought she was commenting on how often men will try and 'chat up a woman' when she is say just going about her business say at work or just out with a friend.

I thought that was probably an interesting thing to debate and didn't think it was about rape. Obviously I read on and understood it was about rape and I don't think it has led anywhere positive.

i never said that they did, nor has anyone else. i did say that the response "you are too arrogant for my H to rape you" is an offensive one (and completely missing the point of the OP)