This is a very good point, and illustrates why having a bad explanation for a good point can undermine some of its aims. Often with poor analogies the problems are revealed by extending the analogy a little further. In the first cartoon, the first cell, is supposed to be an analogy for an instance of consent. But if the analogy is reversed, the dialog would read “Thanks for letting me borrow (use) your body/sex/etc…”.
Indeed, there is a deeper, more underlying problem in even the way that consent is viewed if it amounts to respectfully asking someone before using them. The analogies dissociate the women as subjects from their role in sex as a premise, then introduce their subjectivities almost as a third party, who leaves the situation once consent is given. Once the man in the cartoon is given consent by the woman-subject to use her car/body/sex, the woman-object, the man presumably drives away with the woman-object, leaving the woman-subject out of the picture. There clearly a false dichotomy set up here between rape and a still very problematic model of consent. To further emphasize how bad an analogy this is, imagine if you asked to borrow someone’s car and drove away with it only to have them suddenly appear in the car and ask that you stop driving.
Perhaps, rather than endlessly trying to demystify rape, as though its a confusing concept, sex education needs to have more realistic positive pictures rendered of what consent looks like.