"There is a man who really likes raping women. It gets him off, the power and control he has, as well as the fear in her eyes as she realizes yes, this is really going to happen. He enjoys doing this as often as he can. But he doesn’t want to go to jail for it, nor does he want people to ostracize him socially if they discover he’s a rapist. (If nothing else, that makes it harder to find new victims!) So he attacks drunk women. He may even ply them with alcohol to get them drunker. He does this for two reasons: 1) They are easier to overpower and 2) No one believes them because they were drinking. After the rape, if the victim says she was raped, all you have to do is refer to the Legend of the Accidental Rapist, and everyone will rally to support you while dismissing the victim for being a sloppy drunk and a hysterical bitch who is too hopped up on feminist horseshit to think properly. Even better, most victims know that’s how it will go down, so they probably won’t say anything at all, leaving you to keep raping without much interference."
"If you think pubic hair on a woman is unnatural or weird, you aren’t mature enough to be touching them."
Tangentially related historical note: John Ruskin, the 19th century british painter, had never seen a woman naked before he married, only classical nude statues, so he assumed real women were just as smooth and hairless as the statues showed. He refused to touch his wife when she disrobed on their wedding night, saying she was revolting. She was understandably like ‘wtf is wrong with you brb filing for annulment’ and went on to marry his (former) bff and have a long happy marriage with 8 kids. Ruskin died alone and probably still never having gotten over the whole ‘women have hair’ thing.
THE MORAL HERE is that you shouldn’t be like John Ruskin because he was a tool and also that media has been delivering unrealistic images of female body hair for a depressingly long time. And that Stoya is absolutely right.