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?

You make a good point, though. It would also be useful if you were asleep and a 'friend' thought you mightn't mind him inserting his penis. And make them realise there was no point in spiking your drink.

The letter idea is a thought experiment; a satirical device to explore the concept of assumed consent/availability. Perhaps you need to change your name, Theoretician

My second post (in the thread) was (in my head) a concise aside because I though the thread wasn't to be taken seriously. (See my first post.)

Oh fuck, OP, you haven't sent those letters out yet, have you?

I think you should get up early and wait by the post box to try and persuade the postman to hand them back.

If he demands special favours you only have yourself to blame.

Let me re-iterate, as no-one seems to have understood my last post. I don't think a letter granting consent in the future can carry any weight, for precisely the same reason that a letter of non-consent wouldn't.

A letter might matter if there was no communication at the time. I'm assuming that is an extremely rare scenario.

You've missed an element. Have another look at the OP. It goes: do not want to have sex with them unless and until further formal notice from me?

This is a satirical thread, designed to send up the social attitudes of rape apologists, who behave as if lack of consent has to be proven, not consent. I have seen some truly horrific threads on the internet, after rape victims asked for support with clear-cut stranger rape, where they were met with 20 pages of vehement flaming for considering "ruining an innocent man's life". They were asked how the stranger could have known they weren't consenting, if they remembered feeling unable to struggle.

This hypothetical letter is about that attitude. It's not a sexist thread demonising men as rapists. It's NOT aimed at telling men not to rape, because 19/20 know not to, and the 20th either only fears getting caught, or doesn't acknowledge that he's a rapist. So he'll ignore it, too.

This is about saying, "so at what point would rape apologists hold up their hands and say, 'yeah, Josephine Smith isn't at fault for not saying no clearly enough. The rapist was responsible for checking she was actually consenting right then. He* had absolutely no business presuming consent."

What would it take? Absolutely unworkable measures, like a letter to 3.5 billion people, just on the offchance one of them is a rapist who will one day target you?

Amanda is exposing society's attitude to consent for the illogical absurd mess it is. A mess that victimises rape victims further, by seeking any excuse to deny their experiences.

*I use 'he' because this particular social attitude is, IME, an attitude towards female victims of male rapists. Male and female victims of female rapists are also ill-treated by society at large, but in different ways.

Just to make my previous post clearer. The point is not that a letter of non-consent should stand for all time, but that it should stand as a default, until explicit consent is given. Except, wait, what, that kind of thing shouldn't be necessary, should it? I mean, everyone knows that a dentist can't just start drilling holes until you've consented to treatment, otherwise it would be assault or something from the Offences Against the Person Act. And you can't perform surgery or prostate examinations without the patient agreeing, either. Because the assumption is that you presume no, until the patient agrees.

But it's seen as reasonable for a man to have presumed consent and not realised a woman was saying no to sexual activity. This isn't just awful for women. It's awful to men. I have a husband I love very much, male friends I care dearly for, and soms. And I am insulted on their behalf that society naturally assumes that all these XY human beings I love and trust wouldn't be able to tell or care if a XX human wasn't consenting. That is incredibly sexist.

When we excuse rapists, we insult people everywhere. Both rape victims and all the people who never would rape. Including men.

Yy queentilly very well put.

The reason why OP needs to send a letter to every man saying "No" to sex, isn't because she thinks they all want to have sex with her.

It's because a large number of people (of both genders) incorrectly think that rape is only rape if a woman has explicitly said "No" beforehand. Whereas, in fact, of course it's the other way round. Sex is only NOT rape if a woman has explicitly (which doesn't have to mean verbally) said "Yes" beforehand.

The OP is pointing out this common and awful error using the medium of sarcasm. The sarcastic element is how silly it would be to send a letter to every man. The sarcastic "point" is that explicitly saying "no" to every man is not necessary, because "no" should be the default position, and everyone should understand that a woman will override this "no" in specific cases where she wants to have sex, by "explicitly" (verbally or non-verbally) saying "Yes".

Phew. To my mind, the OP said all that much more clearly and succinctly, but this explanation appears to be necessary for some!

Ah, QueenTilly explained it better a couple of posts up. Original OP still said it best of all IMO.