> a male doesnt have to overpower to not consent to something like that.
Well, plus, you clock a fat chick and then the cops ask you what happened and you say "Officer...it was self-defense, she was trying to sexually assault me." and you're getting hauled off, not her.
> why didn't I report it?
I think the presumption that the cops need to be involved, that some third party should have authority over everything or it's not real, is some kind of modern disease. "I cannot make you do what I want, so I will call the police and they will force you." So you've got New York making it illegal for a landlord to misgender you, insane shit like that. This whole "IF IT WAS REAL, THEN WHY DIDN'T YOU CALL THE POLICE" shit is a facet of that. This was an interesting read: http://righteousmind.com/where-microaggressions-really-come-from/ . The idea in the paper he's discussing (attached) is that societies' moral cultures fall into three categories: "A Culture of Honor. Honor is a kind of status attached to physical bravery and the unwillingness to be dominated by anyone.", "A Culture of Dignity. [...] Rather than honor, a status based primarily on public opinion, people are said to have dignity, a kind of inherent worth that cannot be alienated by others.", and finally "A Culture of Victimhood. [...] A culture of victimhood is one characterized by concern with status and sensitivity to slight combined with a heavy reliance on third parties. [...] Domination is the main form of deviance, and victimization a way of attracting sympathy, so rather than emphasize either their strength or inner worth, the aggrieved emphasize their oppression and social marginalization." The paper argues that we're a "dignity" culture and slipping into a "victimhood" culture with the upcoming generation, and that was written about ten years ago (it's noted that the mindset is prevalent in college campuses), so we're there, those people are all (chonologically) adults.
> A lot of people don't have historical ties to the communities in which they live, so the means for maintaining social order tends to shift towards what is most impersonal, public law.
There's also less incentive.
> That alone helps to maintain social order to a large extent
Yeah, prisoner's dilemma: what do you play if the game isn't iterated?
I think a highly mobile society is partly to blame for the reliance on public law. A lot of people don't have historical ties to the communities in which they live, so the means for maintaining social order tends to shift towards what is most impersonal, public law.
I still live in a town that still has some generational families, and where I have a lot of extended family, including second and third cousins. There's a lot of deep lore, but there's also a lot of love. Most of my clients have some connection to my family through some line of relationships, and this make the relationship more than merely professional. They're not just people who walk through your door and pay money. They're story is in part my story and there's some force there that wants to maintain the "diginity" of that story. Both sides humanize each other and treat each other with respect.
On the otherhand, those who don't have that common history tend to treat me as some atomized cog that they has to do their bidding because I'm being paid. It's often, though not always, very cold and impersonal.
It's actually caused me to be somewhat xenophobic, but not based on race or ethnicity, but on whether the person is a "local."
And I'm not saying it's always the case that a "new comer" is cold or unfriendly. Rather, that there is something very different when you share a history with another. That alone helps to maintain social order to a large extent through the dignifying of that history.