People who prey on others are not confused about what they're doing.

Popular rhetoric these days is that people - well, typically "men" or even explicitly "all men" (expressio unius est exclusio alterius) - need to be "educated" about consent so they can comprehend what is and is not acceptable. Setting aside legitimate, honest miscommunication and philosophical disagreement for the moment, this is either wishful thinking or derogatory generalization or both.

The people who perpetrate deception, harassment, force, etc. know that they are perpetrating deception, harassment, force, etc. and are well aware that people consider it unacceptable. I've dealt with many of these people myself, both men and women (and even a transgender individual or two as well). Those same people will often complain about the same or similar things happening to them or somebody they care about, even to their victims, before, during, and/or after they do it themselves. The issue is not that they think their behavior is acceptable, or insignificant, but that they think it is acceptable or insignificant only when they do it. This is not a lack of comprehension or innocent misunderstanding of the subject, but a case of blatant self-entitlement. To give them the benefit of the doubt with rhetoric about how they "don't understand" is to basically just give them a bullshit excuse for their intentional transgression(s). To suggest they should be lumped in with other people who don't carry the same attitude is insulting to those other people.

It's not a nice simple quixotic theory like "teach men not to rape" or "men don't understand consent" or any of the other nonsensical rhetoric being thrown around, but the world we live in is not nice and simple just because we want it to be. "Men" are not "almost exclusively" or even "primarily" responsible for possessing or displaying this attitude and people who possess and display this attitude are not simply in need of "education" to be able to understand that what they are doing is unacceptable. What actually needs to be addressed in this case is that some people from any gender believe that they're above having to respect things like consent just because they don't want to, even though they know damn well what they're doing is unacceptable.

If you want to have educational and philosophical discussions to address some of the legitimate miscommunications and disagreements about consent as well, that's fine. Just don't suggest they're "gendered issues" or lump it in with people perpetrating deception, harassment, force, etc. or suggest people who perpetrate those things are "uninformed" about consent. By excusing, "gendering" or conflating those issues you're not doing any favors for anybody except the people who absolutely don't deserve it.

All sex is rape!

So, there's this line, "women as a class are coerced into sex by society and institutional marginalization and blah, blah, blah."

And as we have heard over and over, apparently, "coercion is the same thing as rape."

Well, if "women" are "as a class" incapable of having sex without being raped, "because institutional marginalization = coercion" then wouldn't it follow that any other class of "marginalized" people are subject to the same rules? Homosexuals are "institutionally marginalized" and transgendered people are "institutionally marginalized" and black people are "institutionally marginalized" and Hispanics, Asians, Jews, even disabled and poor people are "institutionally marginalized" according to popular rhetoric, so none of them can be considered to have the proper agency to consent to sex, right?

Turns out, the only people who are actually capable of consenting to sex are rich, straight, white, cis-male, able-bodied people, but since there's nobody else to have sex with, their only option is to have sex with each other. But wait - that would be practicing homosexuality, which means they no longer fall within the narrow class of people who possess enough agency to consent to sex.

I guess if an entire class of people should be considered incapable of meaningfully consenting to sex based on some professional victim politics rhetoric, then it's inescapable that every instance of sex between any demographics should be considered rape and all people everywhere should be prohibited from participating in it.

So you think you "experienced rapeculture" on the bus?

Some guy bothered you trying to get your attention and the fact that the crowd of people didn't rescue you from arguing with him means "rapeculture"?

I've seen a few rants to that effect lately and it's total bullshit.

Point #1:

People don't like to set themselves apart from the group, especially when it involves conflict or inconvenience.

How often do people go out of their way to get involved in any argument between two strangers?  How often do you?  When two people are screaming at each other about one of them taking the spot the other wanted in a parking lot, how likely is it that people are going to head away so they don't have to deal with it, rather than heading toward the noise to see if they can help?  How often do you see youtube videos where instead of stopping to help somebody getting their ass kicked, people stop to record it instead?  How often do you see people stranded on the side of the road for long periods of time while hundreds of cars pass by, simply because nobody stops to help?  Have you not heard of cases where somebody preventably died from an injury, hear attack, etc. while people were crowded around them, simply because nobody bothered to call 911?

Are people just not aware of the concept of "mob mentality" anymore?  People generally don't want to be the first person to assert themself and get involved in any case where there's a group doing nothing.  That's just the way it is with everything.  When you're yelling at somebody on a crowded bus, don't be surprised when nobody wants to stick their neck out by both asserting themself from the crowd and white-knighting for you.  It's not "rapeculture" that keeps them from doing it.  It's general human social nature.

It is the ultimate narcisism to see people not treating your issue any differently from every other issue simply because it is important to you and you interpret that as "a unique systemic form of oppression."

That's not "rapeculture." That's rape hysteria.

Point #2:

There is no guarantee that sticking your neck out for somebody else will be appreciated.

I've more than once had to put myself in danger to protect somebody and I can tell you, it's a crap shoot whether the person you're trying to help will end up being friend or foe based on your involvement.  Try to break up a fight between two people and they could both just end up fighting you, instead of each other.  There was a particular incident that stands out for me where a single guy, too drunk to stand reliably was about to get jumped by 6 larger, more coordinated guys who thought he was slinging ethnic slurs at them.  I physically had to place myself in front of him and fend off/absorb the brunt of their aggression so they didn't literally beat him to death.  After I'd called the police and they flat out refused to show up or even file a report on the incident (is that "hatecrimeculture"?) the guy who was only still breathing due to my interference on his behalf used that very breath to call me "asshole."

Put yourself first, get called "rape supporter" for not doing anything.  Put the "victim" first, maybe get called a rapist for your trouble.

That's not "rapeculture."  That's rape hysteria.

Point #3:

You were not being raped.

I know, it's super-duper scary with all the hysteria about rape these days, to have a man try to actually get your attention and -gasp- interact with you in some way.  Still, some dude bothering you on a crowded bus is not the same thing as him raping you.  Those people you think were participating in "rapeculture" probably could just see you were not in serious danger by the fact that:

a. you were sitting there arguing with him, instead of trying to get away from him
b. he was not physically attacking you
c. you were in a public setting with other people available to help if things went really bad
d. you were not asking for help from anybody else

If you want to require people to automatically rush to the aid of the damsel in (minor) distress every time some man says something she finds unpleasant, then I suggest you start a social movement to turn the clock back to before "equality" was a goal, because that's the "oppressive" way things used to be.  Men used to duel over stupid shit like "offending a lady."  If, however, you want to be taken seriously as a capable adult human, equal to men, you're going to have to "man up" and fight your own "battles" (to use the term loosely) on occasion.

Throwing a tantrum, because nobody stepped in to keep you from being talked to in a public setting isn't "equality."  That's "sense of entitlement."

And people not going out of their way to rescue you from arguing with somebody isn't "rapeculture."  The fact that you are calling it "rapeculture" is just rape hysteria.

Agency: The word doesn't mean what you think it means.

In response to it being pointed out that the "rape culture" rhetoric is seeking to negate the agency of women, now the rhetoric is being tweaked to include claims of "society taking away my agency!" in an attempt to appropriate the thing being used to discredit the victim politics, for use in the victim politics.

News Flash
Agency is not something that can be taken away.

Using your agency can be discouraged.
Effectiveness of your agency can be obstructed.
And sure as hell, the "rape culture" rhetoric tries to obscure the agency of women.

Women still have every single bit of agency that men do.

The reason is, agency is the ability to speak and act on your own behalf. It is an inherent part of being any capable human. Like integrity, self esteem, etc. nobody has the capability to take away your agency. It is up to you to recognize it and decide whether you want to actually use it, regardless of how hard dimwitted popculture rhetoric tries to convince you that you have none.

And therefore when you claim that women, when exposed to the same influences, pressures and challenges men are, have had their agency taken away, while men haven't, you are suggesting that women are fundamentally inferior to men - that they never had any real agency to begin with. You are seeking to discourage, obstruct and obscure the agency of women. You are refusing to acknowledge the inherent power women have, being the same inherent power men have, to speak and act on their own behalf, a.k.a. "agency."

Trying to twist things around so you get to use a word in your rhetoric instead of other people using it to point out what's wrong with your rhetoric, doesn't make your rhetoric any more credible, or any less ridiculous.

Victim-Blaming!

This is a very common accusation that gets thrown around whenever the topic of rape prevention is discussed in relation to women.

"Women shouldn't dress a certain way." - Victim-blaming!
"Women should watch their drink so nothing gets slipped into it." - Victim-blaming!
"Women shouldn't accept rides from strangers." - Victim-blaming!
"Women should stay out of dark alleys in bad neighborhoods at night." - Victim-blaming!
"Women shouldn't walk home alone." - Victim-blaming!
"Women should try to reduce their risk of..." - Victim-blaming!

The popular slogan out there right now is "Don't teach women not to be raped, teach men not to rape!" and anything to the contrary elicits the accusation of "victim-blaming!"

Well, are smoke detectors a form of "death-in-a-housefire-blaming"?  Are bulletproof vests a form of "getting-shot-blaming"?  Are locks and alarms a form of "theft-blaming"?  Are seatbelts, airbags, speed limits, stop signs and traffic lights a form of "car-crash-blaming"?

Let's say just for the sake of argument that preventative advice and defensive precautions actually are a form of "blame."

Doesn't that mean convenience stores and gas stations blame the cashiers for being robbed?

Doesn't that mean fast food restaurants blame their employees for being murdered?

Doesn't that mean we blame children for being offered drugs?

"Don't teach children not to take drugs, teach drug dealers not to sell them!"

See, the difference between protection and blame is "this will help you" versus "this is your fault."  Just because the rapist, or house fire, or shooter, or thief, or other driver, or robber, or murderer, or drug dealer, or whatever may actually be at fault, doesn't mean you shouldn't try to protect yourself from them.  If you make every effort to be as oblivious and vulnerable to the danger as possible, bad things happening to you may be no fault of your own, but some of them may still have been avoidable.