I can already hear people going "comparing proselytizing to rape is CRAZY" so let me get this out of the way:

No one's saying it's *the same* as rape.

The discussions around consent extend beyond rape, but that's where the work has been done, so that's the language we have. https://twitter.com/Green_Mt_Girl/status/1334249709003804678

And the logic most people who don't think proselytizing should be an opt-in, rather than an opt-out, experience apply actually closely resembles the logic a lot of men have been taught around consent--this also extends into Succeed At Business training, etc.

E.g. the idea that you should keep asking until you "get to yes," that you should keep employing different arguments, all that stuff that is designed to *wear down people's resistance.*

And when that logic is the same logic that people use to get sex from partners who aren't enthusiastic, it SHOULD disturb us.

No, the stakes aren't the same as rape when you're trying to get someone into your MLM or into your brand of Christianity.

But when that logic is the same as rape culture logic, even though the stakes aren't as high and thus it's not as life-threateningly urgent to address, it still means that it's worth considering why wearing away another person's autonomy and boundaries is considered a positive.

And again, because the question of *sexual* consent is the one in which the discussion around consent is most developed, that's the analogy everyone goes to because *that's the language we have.*

But "these two things are not equal in severity" does not mean "they are not analogous" or "the problems caused by them aren't related."

Does this mean that an opt-out rather than an opt-in model of consent isn't applicable to *anything* and is always wrong and harmful?

No, obviously not.

But anything that employs an opt-out model probably deserves more intense scrutiny than opt-in models.

And that's doubly true when the thing that you're having to opt out of has a history of causing harm.