This is a response I gave on Facebook to someone who said
Can’t we teach men not to rape at the same time as teaching women how to defend themselves? Oh wait…no. That’s asking too much.
So you’re willing to presume that all men are rapists or rapists in waiting? Just as all gun owners are killers, or killers in waiting?
That’s the problem with the concept. The vast majority of men largely will not rape women and do not want to rape women. Just as the vast majority of gun owners do not want to kill anyone and will not kill anyone.
This presumption is the problem. The presumption that someone who is not taught to not do something bad will invariably do that bad thing. That we have to teach gun owners to not kill or they will kill. That gun owners are out to buy weapons to kill others. I’ve said before that the rhetoric of the anti-gunner is such that they might as well walk up to someone filling out the ATF 4473 form and ask “Who are you planning to kill?”
The same with the “teach men to not rape” crowd. It presumes that all men are rapists until they’ve been taught to not be. That we have to teach men to not rape or they will rape. Forget the fact that most men won’t rape. And that the only reason many women think men will is because they keep narrowing the definition of consent to have more control over men because we will largely do what we can to avoid raping a woman.
Especially since the mere allegation of rape can destroy a man’s life. That alone means you don’t need to teach men to not rape. You just need to account for the ones for whom even teaching them to not rape, presuming such a thing is possible, won’t do any good.
