Here in DC, there's a problem with smartphones getting snatched on the metro. So, they put a bunch of advertisements telling people to be careful with them, watch their sorrounding, and don't have it out in a place where someone could grab it and dash. The ads are focused on the potential victims of the crimes, not the criminals. Presumably, someone who has made the decision to steal from people on the metro is a hardened criminal is not going to be educated. So we focus on educating people on how not to be a victim. Amazingly, this isn't controversial and nobody says this is victim shaming. That we focus on potential victims is just seen as common sense.
There are men who would commit real rape. There are men out there would violently force a woman to have sex against her will. There are men who would have sex with a woman who is passed out drunk. But these men are criminals, and depraved ones are that. Most men would never consider violently taking a girl, most men wouldn't find any pleasure in banging a girl who is passed out drunk or is way too far gone. Anybody who is that depraved is too far gone to be edcuated by a "raping is wrong" message, there would be no point in it, and we would be far better served by teaching people to protect themselves against criminals like that.
By making this "teach men not to rape" argument, I see two goals that the feminists have:
-They wish to define rapists not as a violent, deviant, subset of men, but as any man. They want to say any man is a potential rapist.
-They wish to expand the definition of rape to things such as cases where a woman has drank before having sex, where a woman is repeatedly asked to have sex by her beta partner when she doesn't really want to, or where she puts up resistance at first but then later decides to have sex, and then has . That's why feminists focus talk about a clear, spoken, sober, enethusiastic sex- they want to vastly expand the amont of heterosexual sex that is considered rape.
The trouble is, it's not going to work. Most men and women have the common sense to know that it's not rape if a guy and girl get drunk together and then have sex. Someone who isn't a feminist isolated to her lesbian collective are going to know that most men, for whatever the flaws, are not secret rapists.
So all they succeed in doing is preventing the education of women as to how not be victims of the real criminals. If any of us had a daughter was about to go off to college, of course we want to teach her how to not be a target for the real predators. And by trying to expand the definition of rape, they take away from what a woman who was actually forced went through by comparing her experience to that of someone who got drunk, had sex, and regretted it the next morning.
There are men who would commit real rape. There are men out there would violently force a woman to have sex against her will. There are men who would have sex with a woman who is passed out drunk. But these men are criminals, and depraved ones are that. Most men would never consider violently taking a girl, most men wouldn't find any pleasure in banging a girl who is passed out drunk or is way too far gone. Anybody who is that depraved is too far gone to be edcuated by a "raping is wrong" message, there would be no point in it, and we would be far better served by teaching people to protect themselves against criminals like that.
By making this "teach men not to rape" argument, I see two goals that the feminists have:
-They wish to define rapists not as a violent, deviant, subset of men, but as any man. They want to say any man is a potential rapist.
-They wish to expand the definition of rape to things such as cases where a woman has drank before having sex, where a woman is repeatedly asked to have sex by her beta partner when she doesn't really want to, or where she puts up resistance at first but then later decides to have sex, and then has . That's why feminists focus talk about a clear, spoken, sober, enethusiastic sex- they want to vastly expand the amont of heterosexual sex that is considered rape.
The trouble is, it's not going to work. Most men and women have the common sense to know that it's not rape if a guy and girl get drunk together and then have sex. Someone who isn't a feminist isolated to her lesbian collective are going to know that most men, for whatever the flaws, are not secret rapists.
So all they succeed in doing is preventing the education of women as to how not be victims of the real criminals. If any of us had a daughter was about to go off to college, of course we want to teach her how to not be a target for the real predators. And by trying to expand the definition of rape, they take away from what a woman who was actually forced went through by comparing her experience to that of someone who got drunk, had sex, and regretted it the next morning.