What percentage of straight men would rape women under "ideal" circumstances?

[Skald the Rhymer]

This thread is suggested by a disturbing remark made in a support group I occasionally attending the real world.

For purposes of this poll, ideal circumstances means that the prospective victim is sexually attractive to the man; that the man is virtually certain that he would be able to overpower and violate the woman; that the man is able to perform sexually; that the woman is unwilling to consent to sex; and that they are in circumstances in which the man needs not fear any legal repercussions.

For obvious reasons, only one answer per respondent. For equally obvious reasons, the poll results are private. There's no option for 0% because, really, that could only be true in the Land of Oz.

[The Devil's Grandmother]

I responded based on the percentage of my female friends who (claim to have been) raped. I know the plural of anecdote is not data, but it's the only way I can answer.

I would like to know the circumstances that prompted this poll, if you feel you can share them.

[StusBlues]

I'm not going to answer the above. I will say this:

Could I see myself stealing? I'd like to think not, but I'll admit to the urge, and if I were hard up financially and knew I could get away with it, I won't say I wouldn't steal.

Could I see myself assaulting someone? Yes, unfortunately. There have been times in the past year where the only thing that has kept me from going ballistic on a certain individual has been that he wasn't there when I found out what he'd done. Had I been there, he'd have a broken arm.

Could I see myself murdering someone? Absolutely. I won't because of the consequences to society, but the urge and inclination are there.

Could I see myself raping someone?

Hell, no.

No appeal at all. I'd rather eat a pound of snot. I'm not even invoking moral principles here, since I've demonstrated that mine are less than ideal. I just have no desire to have sex with someone who is unwilling, and I don't understand people who do.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Originally Posted by The Devil's Grandmother

I responded based on the percentage of my female friends who (claim to have been) raped. I know the plural of anecdote is not data, but it's the only way I can answer.

I would like to know the circumstances that prompted this poll, if you feel you can share them.

One person in the group claimed that the percentage is well over 90%.

I disagree, but I am also the one male who has, thus far, voted the the percentage was higher then 10%. (I voted the next group up.) That's because I think there's a lot of men who would never do so solo, but who could be emboldened to do so (or pressured to do so despite not wanting to) in a group situation.

[Zeriel]

I think your "ideal circumstances" are somewhat mistaken--I think that a very low (<1% ) of men would rape a woman in the scenario you describe where there would be overpowering involved.

I'd have voted potentially as high as the the 26-50% range if your definition of rape included "getting them so drunk/stoned/doped up (on recreational substances, mind, not GHB/roofies) they no longer remember why they wouldn't say 'yes'", based on my frat party experiences--mostly because I believe a fair percentage of men would deliberately overestimate a "willing" partner's legal ability to consent far more readily than they'd forcibly rape.

[Freudian Slit]

I said between one and ten. Oh, and I'm female. I know a lot of women are raped and assaulted and maybe it's wishful thinking but I'd like to believe it's a small number of men doing the raping.

Haven't they done polls about these things where a lot of men admit to it, if they could get away with it? Though I don't know how accurate those things are. They get cited a lot, but then again, I don't know if the wording is, "Would you rape" or if it's more like, "Would you coerce."

[The Devil's Grandmother]

Zeriel, I see your point, but I had assumed that "overpowering" the victim could include the use of drugs or alcohol. I don't see the method of overpowerment being specifically addressed in the OP.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I think the number is higher than anyone would be comfortable knowing. I chose around 25%.

The "ideal conditions" could not have any less relevance for me personally. The idea of rape does not have the slightest erotic appeal to me under any circumstance, but I've heard way too much guy talk (including in military barracks) to think that the connection of violence/hostility/indifferent objectification to sex is all that rare among men.

[Freudian Slit]

Originally Posted by Zeriel

I think your "ideal circumstances" are somewhat mistaken--I think that a very low (<1% ) of men would rape a woman in the scenario you describe where there would be overpowering involved.

I'd have voted potentially as high as the the 26-50% range if your definition of rape included "getting them so drunk/stoned/doped up (on recreational substances, mind, not GHB/roofies) they no longer remember why they wouldn't say 'yes'", based on my frat party experiences--mostly because I believe a fair percentage of men would deliberately overestimate a "willing" partner's legal ability to consent far more readily than they'd forcibly rape.

True. Also if she's drinking on her own but gets so drunk that she is unable to consent or even drunk enough to pass out. Like, a guy coming across a drunk woman where he hasn't even encouraged her to drink but he does take advantage of the situation. He hasn't actually caused it but if he takes advantage, it could be the "ideal" situation to rape a woman because she might not know it's happened when she wakes up.

Maybe I shouldn't have voted for a higher category...

[Skald the Rhymer]

Originally Posted by The Devil's Grandmother

Zeriel, I see your point, but I had assumed that "overpowering" the victim could include the use of drugs or alcohol. I don't see the method of overpowerment being specifically addressed in the OP.

Your thoughts & mine pretty much dovetail here, TDG. I'd consider "drugging into insensibility or paralysis and then fucking" to be a no less a form of overpowering as "beating with a tire iron."

Also, what Dio said. 'Cept for the part about the barracks.

[Kelby]

If the men are sober, probably the same percentage that you would find among those identified with antisocial personality disorder. Maybe 3-5%

If the man is intoxicated (which he often is in cases of rape, I believe) the number goes way up.

[Contrapuntal]

Originally Posted by Skald the Rhymer

This thread is suggested by a disturbing remark made in a support group I occasionally attending the real world.

How odd! I occasionally burning the real dog.

[Malthus]

I assume you mean 'what percentage of men who have not otherwise committed rape would be willing to do so under the correct circumstances'. I do not know what percentage of men have actually committed rape already, but I assume it is higher than 1%.

To my mind, very few additional men would commit rape.

There are several reasons:

1. Most men would not actually enjoy raping someone. First, because that requires a level of sadism and lack of empathy that most men simply lack; second, even if a man cares nothing for empathy, it is simply unappealing. The vast majority of men require at least the appearance or simalcrum of pleasure from their partners. A struggling victim isn't a turn-on for the huge majority of guys, where that victim is genuinely angry or terrified (pretending to struggle or be a victim for BDSM purposes is of course very different).

2. Even assuming a man lacks empathy for others and positively enjoys having sex with a struggling victim 'for real', the social conditioning against this is very powerful; merely being told that there will be no consequences would not be enough to overcome it, for most men (even if as here you have good reason to believe it).

In short, I am not of the opinion that it is fear of consequences and lack of opportunity that keeps the vast majority of men from raping women.

[MrDibble]

I've voted 26-50, although I could as easily have gone for 51-75. I know lots of women who've been raped (I'd say around 1/3 of my acquaintances that I know of), inmore than one case it was gang rape, and certainly wasn't the same guys every time, so I don't think it's a tiny minority of guys if they think they can get away with it.

And, of course, there's this damning poll that shows what men would be like when society lets them get away with it. I don't think there's anything particularly unusual about South African or African men's wiring in this regard , only the amount they can get away with in an indifferent society. You only have to look at war rape - take Serbia, Bosnia & Kosovo - a "small number of men" doesn't rape 10s of thousands of women by themselves)

[Skald the Rhymer]

Originally Posted by Malthus

I assume you mean 'what percentage of men who have not otherwise committed rape would be willing to do so under the correct circumstances'.

You assume incorrectly.

[Malthus]

Originally Posted by Skald the Rhymer

You assume incorrectly.

Obviously, those men who have already raped are just as likely to do so if there were no consequences. I'm not sure what value there is in guessing how many men are actually rapists, but I believe some college survey suggested that as many as 6% admitted to doing it for the survey-maker's value of rape.

http://www.collegenews.com/index.php...pe_2356263623/

Assuming this is universally true, that would form the "floor". To my mind at least, the interesting number is the difference between this 'floor" and the "ceiling" formed by the number who are not actual rapists but who would be if they had opportunity and lack of consequences.

In my opinion, the "ceiling" would not be much higher.

[billfish678]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

You only have to look at war rape - take Serbia, Bosnia & Kosovo - a "small number of men" doesn't rape 10s of thousands of women by themselves)

In war pretty much all social norms go out the window, so I really don't see the relevance.

[Freudian Slit]

Originally Posted by billfish678

In war pretty much all social norms go out the window, so I really don't see the relevance.

But if it's only social norms preventing people from raping, then isn't that like saying that the urge/ability to rape is there--it's just controlled by society?

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by billfish678

In war pretty much all social norms go out the window, so I really don't see the relevance.

So war is "ideal" circumstances for rape, wouldn't you say? Pretty much like the OP. Or, what FS said.

[Skammer]

Originally Posted by Malthus

I assume you mean 'what percentage of men who have not otherwise committed rape would be willing to do so under the correct circumstances'. I do not know what percentage of men have actually committed rape already, but I assume it is higher than 1%.

To my mind, very few additional men would commit rape.

There are several reasons:

1. Most men would not actually enjoy raping someone. First, because that requires a level of sadism and lack of empathy that most men simply lack; second, even if a man cares nothing for empathy, it is simply unappealing. The vast majority of men require at least the appearance or simalcrum of pleasure from their partners. A struggling victim isn't a turn-on for the huge majority of guys, where that victim is genuinely angry or terrified (pretending to struggle or be a victim for BDSM purposes is of course very different).

2. Even assuming a man lacks empathy for others and positively enjoys having sex with a struggling victim 'for real', the social conditioning against this is very powerful; merely being told that there will be no consequences would not be enough to overcome it, for most men (even if as here you have good reason to believe it).

In short, I am not of the opinion that it is fear of consequences and lack of opportunity that keeps the vast majority of men from raping women.

This was my reasoning and answer as well

[Malthus]

Originally Posted by billfish678

In war pretty much all social norms go out the window, so I really don't see the relevance.

I'd put it differently - the rapes in Bosnia etc. were deliberate acts of ethnic atrocity, or so I understand. They were in effect committed intentionally to humiliate and dishonour the hated enemy. Most individuals not involved in a bitter ethnic dispute lack this sort of motive. Mere loss of social norms is not at work here, so much as the replacement of ordinary social norms by ones focused on revenge and hatred against traditional ethnic enemies.

What I am a loss to understand is the high prevelance of rape in South Africa. Mere lack of enforcement isn't a good explaination, as there are plenty of places in the world that have even less in the way of police and yet do not have as high a rate of rape. I simply do not know enough about South African society to understand it.

[Malthus]

Originally Posted by Freudian Slit

But if it's only social norms preventing people from raping, then isn't that like saying that the urge/ability to rape is there--it's just controlled by society?

True, if the war rapes in Bosnia etc. were merely rapes of opportunity. My understanding is that they were deliberately organized and encouraged in order to "punish" the ethnic enemy.

[Anaamika]

Probably far more than my optimistic mind would like to know.

[billfish678]

Originally Posted by Malthus

True, if the war rapes in Bosnia etc. were merely rapes of opportunity. My understanding is that they were deliberately organized and encouraged in order to "punish" the ethnic enemy.

That too. And thats my understanding that much of the raping had nothing to do with "fun" of any kind.

They killed the men they could and raped the women. Its better than killing them instead.

And on the flipside, in a war scenario, there is all kindsa stuff women would do too that otherwise would be nearly unthinkable. And, again, I think thats pretty irrellevant as well. If 30 percent of women are prostitutes in a war zone does that mean that 30 percent would be prostitutes in peace time if they thought it was under "ideal conditions"?

[otternell]

Originally Posted by billfish678

That too. And thats my understanding that much of the raping had nothing to do with "fun" of any kind.

They killed the men they could and raped the women. Its better than killing them instead.

And on the flipside, in a war scenario, there is all kindsa stuff women would do too that otherwise would be nearly unthinkable. And, again, I think thats pretty irrellevant as well. If 30 percent of women are prostitutes in a war zone does that mean that 30 percent would be prostitutes in peace time if they thought it was under "ideal conditions"?

I don't really want to derail the conversation, but is anyone else curious as to what billfish is getting at in the above quote? Especially the section that I bolded. Maybe I am reading too much into it, but it came across to me as a "so what men rape - but women do bad stuff too".

In ideal circumstances, and war would certainly be ideal circumstances, the numbers are probably depressingly high, and I don't even want to guess.

[Noone Special]

I would like to point out that Skald's "ideal circumstances" are, essentially, what we called "marriage" through most of Geography and Time (save the Western World in the last ... century or so? Less?) -- if the husband wanted sex, by George he got it!
I have little faith in Humans, of any stripe, creed or gender....

[Skald the Rhymer]

Originally Posted by otternell

I don't really want to derail the conversation, but is anyone else curious as to what billfish is getting at in the above quote? Especially the section that I bolded. Maybe I am reading too much into it, but it came across to me as a "so what men rape - but women do bad stuff too".

In ideal circumstances, and war would certainly be ideal circumstances, the numbers are probably depressingly high, and I don't even want to guess.

billfish's meaning was pretty obvious to me. He wasn't equating rape and prostitution by any means. He was saying that humans behave in different circumstances.

I tend to agree. I think there are many men who would never rape in civilian life who might engage in a gang rape during war, because there would be different stressors and pressures. (This does not mean that rape is any morally different in wartime.)

[otternell]

Originally Posted by Skald the Rhymer

billfish's meaning was pretty obvious to me. He wasn't equating rape and prostitution by any means. He was saying that humans behave in different circumstances.

I tend to agree. I think there are many men who would never rape in civilian life who might engage in a gang rape during war, because there would be different stressors and pressures. (This does not mean that rape is any morally different in wartime.)

thanks for the clarification - I was reading too much into it. Agreed that war is shitty circumstances wherein all people's regular moral code is under pressure.

[astorian]

What the heck are “ideal circumstances,” anyway?

Never mind, I don't want to know.

In my experience, sex with a woman who isn’t an enthusiastic, willing, active partner just isn’t any fun. I can’t imagine how any man could enjoy doing it with a woman who’s out cold, let alone one who’s trying to fight him off.

[billfish678]

Originally Posted by otternell

I don't really want to derail the conversation, but is anyone else curious as to what billfish is getting at in the above quote? Especially the section that I bolded. Maybe I am reading too much into it, but it came across to me as a "so what men rape - but women do bad stuff too".

(

If you asked most women today under the conditions they currently live in if they would kill someone or fuck for some spending cash if they "get away with", very few would answer yes.

Throw em into a war and IMO a good fraction of those no women would become yes women under the right conditions. In which case, are you going to point at all these women and then conclude that women in general are a bunch of killing whores? Yeah, I guess that would be technically true I guess, but thats not the conclusion I'd draw. And, therefore, I think drawing big conclusions from wartime scenarious is crock in general.

Its about being a damn war.

IMO if this poll is about what you might could possibly do under the most extreme conditions thens IMO its a worthless poll.

I bet if you put me in a room with Ghandi long enough I could get him to kick me in the nuts. And that didnt work I would bring in Gilbert Ghodffrey? to work on him.

There is plenty of things I would "not" do, but if you make the scenario extreme enough, I'd at least consider doing it.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Originally Posted by Contrapuntal

How odd! I occasionally burning the real dog.

I'm a little busy, so if you could go ahead and fling yourself into a pit filled with man-eating chipmunks that'd really help me out.

[Cat Fight]

Originally Posted by Noone Special

I would like to point out that Skald's "ideal circumstances" are, essentially, what we called "marriage" through most of Geography and Time (save the Western World in the last ... century or so? Less?) -- if the husband wanted sex, by George he got it!

True up until the 199os in many states, at least form a legal standpoint.

I really don't know what to click. Who does? I know there have been surveys asking just this (not sure what languag they used) on school campuses and the results have been scary. As has been mentioned, 'ideal' conditions might have more to do with geography and culture than a specific one-on-one (or two or more on one, I guess) scenario e.g. finding oneself alone in a dorm room.

I do think war zones are relevant, though. It has been suggested that kids who grow up in impoverished US neighborhoods with high crime rates experience some of the same conditions as those who grow up in war zones – might help explain cases like the one from a few months back where the 15-year-old girl was gang raped outside a school dance in Richmond, California.

[Der Trihs]

I chose "I am male, and I think it's between 11 & 25% "; as a guess on the lower end of that range. 15% say. When you pile up the psychopaths, sexists, unthinkingly selfish, and so on all together that's a fair number of people. I think you'd get about the same number for all sorts of bad behavior, and not just from men; robbery, murder, poisoning a rival, whatever.

[CutterJohn]

Forcible rape, not so high.

Questionable rape, where one or both parties are waaaaay to liquored up, and she didn't exactly say no, if she even remembers it, lots higher.

Statutory rape, damned near 100%(at least in the 14-18 age)

[ToeJam]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Forcible rape, not so high.

Questionable rape, where one or both parties are waaaaay to liquored up, and she didn't exactly say no, if she even remembers it, lots higher.

Statutory rape, damned near 100%(at least in the 14-18 age)

Add in the Husband-Wife scenario; the already rapists able to do so again, then the pedophiles and others who could now legally get away with acting out their fantasies; the War Rape scenarios; the fraternity parties where now consequences aren't needed, the porn industry which could cash in on the legalized rape scenarios, the prison systems in which every prisoner gets a chance to have sex with a female though I assume they'd still have to remain in prison afterward. And anything else I've forgotten to mention. Namely the big ones for me though were Statutory situations, Relationships, and intoxicated females- those are much more likely than the forcible rape scenarios, and the gist of where my voting comes from.

I pretty much took the OP at face value- every male pretty much gets "their" scenario whatever it need be for any form of unconsensual sex that would allowed could be allowed- ie: each male got 'their scenario' for when they could take advantage of someone- would they do it.

That's why I went with the up to 50%, because I'm an optimist. :sigh:

[Cat Fight]

Originally Posted by billfish678

If you asked most women today under the conditions they currently live in if they would kill someone or fuck for some spending cash if they "get away with", very few would answer yes.

Throw em into a war and IMO a good fraction of those no women would become yes women under the right conditions. In which case, are you going to point at all these women and then conclude that women in general are a bunch of killing whores? Yeah, I guess that would be technically true I guess, but thats not the conclusion I'd draw. And, therefore, I think drawing big conclusions from wartime scenarious is crock in general.

But screwing for cash during wartime would be, one assumes, for survival, and killing someone would be, again one assumes, in self-defense (even in a roundabout way e.g. before they kill you). As stuthehistoryguy points out, you can't rape someone in self defense, or to survive. I suppose you could argue that your gang or crew would kill you if you don't take part in a gang rape, but beyond that it's just not comparable.

[Mr. Excellent]

I think it's under 1%. Maybe that makes me far too cheery about human nature - but, damnit, we're social animals. We empathize instinctively with one another, and it isn't that easy to overcome that instinctive behavior. Yes, there are many many rapes - far too many (hell, one is too many. But there are 7 billion people walking around - you don't need a large percentage of them to be willing to rape to get an awful lot of rapes.

I'd never rape anyone, for the same reason I'd never beat the shit out of someone just for the hell of it, or shoot a man in Reno just to watch him die - it's simply, profoundly anathema to the sort of person I am. And I think the overwhelming majority of people are like me, or we wouldn't even *have* a society that condemns these things.

[Freudian Slit]

Originally Posted by Cat Fight

But screwing for cash during wartime would be, one assumes, for survival, and killing someone would be, again one assumes, in self-defense (even in a roundabout way e.g. before they kill you). As stuthehistoryguy points out, you can't rape someone in self defense, or to survive. I suppose you could argue that your gang or crew would kill you if you don't take part in a gang rape, but beyond that it's just not comparable.

Yeah, that was my basic thinking, too. An individual man might feel he had to, as you say. But it's not like men in general *have* to rape. They may be more likely to, but it's not like rape follows as a survival tool. The women who are prostitutes genuinely have to to survive because they get money/food in exchange for a service. But what is the man getting when he rapes that he so desperately needs?

[RickJay]

I pikced 11-25% but in all honesty I don't know.

To those who picked under one percent - I mean, you do know there are a lot of rapes taking place, right?

[John DiFool]

It could be that 5% of the men commit 75% of the rapes.

[Oakminster]

Didn't read past the OP, so as to give unspoiled commentary.

As far as I know, rape has little to do with sex. It's mostly about a perverse power/control/abuse thing. I don't think most men are into that. Scratch that...no real men are into that, but some assholes that happen to be male are.

[Cesario]

I voted on the high end, 75-99%. (I'm thinking around 80%.) I think I lose a little more faith in humanity every time I contemplate what is considered normal, acceptable behavior in "the dating game". Like many, however, I'm not so devoid of faith in my fellow human beings that I view the forcable scenario as the one that's most likely to qualify as "ideal circumstances". Use of drugs, deception, and all manner of other things seem infinitely more likely to me. Add in the ones who are too ignorant of one anothers' feelings or lacking in ability to interpret them, and we've got another large group.

I do believe it is a minority who would actually want to force themselves on another person, and I don't see "fear of getting caught" as the main issue. The main issue is people who suffer from a kind of distorted thinking wherein either they view sex as something owed to them, or wherein they believe they are wanted even in the face of violent resistence.

There's also a disturbing degree to which people can justify poor behavior to themselves. Consider the person who decides that it's okay to slip someone a roofy and have his way with her, since what she doesn't know can't traumatize her. This is someone who genuinely cares about the other person's mental health, but has such distorted thinking that they are dangerous anyway.

[Zsofia]

Jesus, is this the natural end-point of the "if a woman walked up to you in a bar...." threads?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by John DiFool

It could be that 5% of the men commit 75% of the rapes.

I'd expect a bigger percentage than that, but I wouldn't be surprised if a minority of rapists are responsible for most rapes. Like murder; most murderers kill one person. Then you have the minority of murderers, who kill person after person. Some people give in to their uncivilized urges once; a few have no problems with indulging themselves regardless of the cost to others.

[AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet]

n my experience, sex with a woman who isn’t an enthusiastic, willing, active partner just isn’t any fun. I can’t imagine how any man could enjoy doing it with a woman who’s out cold, let alone one who’s trying to fight him off.

Yes. Assholes/things that commit rape are just SO self centered. They misuse their penis.
Most of the rapes do seem to be the " got drunk/stoned and have impaired judgement sort of thing.
Not to mention the guys who may misread social cues and think " Oh she wants what I want"

Not to mention the assholes who take advantage of girls with develeopmental delays. I know a couple who were raped by "boyfriends"
However, even with that stranger rape tends to be overall kind of rare. Ido agree with whoever said that most rape is probaly perpetrated by scum who are so narcisstic/sociopathic the only thing that matters is THEIR pleasure!

[Kaio]

Originally Posted by Freudian Slit

Haven't they done polls about these things where a lot of men admit to it, if they could get away with it? Though I don't know how accurate those things are. They get cited a lot, but then again, I don't know if the wording is, "Would you rape" or if it's more like, "Would you coerce."

I've heard of surveys (and this was ages ago, so I no longer remember where I heard it) done of college students where the survey asked "Would you rape a woman?" and naturally, very few said yes. Then a bit later another of the questions asked (for example) "Would you finger a woman who'd passed out from drinking?" and the number of yeses was significantly higher. The questions continued on presenting similar scenarios which met the legal definition of rape/sexual assault, but without using those words to describe it; and the number of "yes" answers were pretty significant.

The point being, is that the reason a lot of men rape, is that they convince themselves that it's not rape to do [whatever]. It's not even a matter of thinking they can get away with it -- they don't even believe that it's wrong. And I think the number of these guys is pretty significant, although I hope most of 'em eventually get wiser as they get older.

[Kaio]

Originally Posted by Malthus

... but I believe some college survey suggested that as many as 6% admitted to doing it for the survey-maker's value of rape.

I'd actually guess that the "floor" is higher than that, since the survey questions used the word "force" which is still a very loaded word.

[ShibbOleth]

I put 1-10%, thinking about 5-10% is the rough level of scumbags I seem to encounter. Could be more or less. Personally, I can't even fathom the attraction, and find the idea of role play of this or even spanking as something that just does absolutely nothing for me, to the point of being disturbing.

[Carmady]

I think less than 1%. None of the conditions really seem like they would increase the actual numbers.

Also, the set-up makes it sound like the rapist is fully aware he is committing a crime (else why would he care about legal consequences) and overpowers his victim.

Even some actual rapists (the kind who convince themselves the woman is willing, or who commit the crime under the influence of drugs and don't overpower anyone), while evil, might not want to do it.

And then there are the social consequences. Are there really people who don't care about the social consequences of being a rapist, but can't think of a way to get by the legal aspect?

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Zeriel

I think your "ideal circumstances" are somewhat mistaken--I think that a very low (<1% ) of men would rape a woman in the scenario you describe where there would be overpowering involved.

I'd have voted potentially as high as the the 26-50% range if your definition of rape included "getting them so drunk/stoned/doped up (on recreational substances, mind, not GHB/roofies) they no longer remember why they wouldn't say 'yes'", based on my frat party experiences--mostly because I believe a fair percentage of men would deliberately overestimate a "willing" partner's legal ability to consent far more readily than they'd forcibly rape.

Same reasoning, same result here.
And I'd add that if on top of that you add browbeating, strongarming, tricking, blackmailing, peer pressuring, mind games etc... in order to get the woman to give a consent she doesn't really mean, deliberately throwing away everything but that half-hearted "...ok", you can add ~30 more percents.
I know, I know, we've already had that great debate - grey line, how can you know if she really means yes, she shouldn't say yes if she doesn't mean it, blah blah blah. It's still extremely uncool and you know it.

ETA : clarification : I'm not talking directly at Zeriel here - it's general yous and wes throughout.