The Baby Ad: Myth, Reality, and Danger in Prevention

They call themselves Men's Rights Advocates, or MRA’s.  I’ve aimed a fair amount of criticism their way over the years as paranoid-sounding myth perpetrators, which I believe many of them to be.  So I was surprised when I found myself agreeing with them- marginally- on an anti-rape video produced by a Midwestern rape crisis and DV advocacy center run by a male advocate named Josh Jasper, now the poster-boy enemy for the men's rights movement.  Jasper, a former Marine, ex-cop and now CEO of what appears to be a vibrant, multi-location facility, is a guy I’d probably admire and agree with more often than not.  But I think his video misses the mark, although not exactly for the reasons the MRA pitchfork crowd is seething about.The video depicts an adorable and utterly innocent, smiling male infant as a potential future rapist, and suggests that teaching him different ideas of masculinity is the key to ending sexual violence.  So presumably he can be taught to rape, or taught not to rape.  Jasper himself contends that no one is born to be a rapist or a batterer, but rather that it’s learned behavior.  MRA’s, though, seem to believe that Jasper wants us to think all boys are by default potential rapists who must be taught to behave more gently than the naturally crazed beasts they are.  That, in their view, constitutes misandry (a hatred of men and boys) and is part of a hyper-feminist, emasculating pandemic fueled by government largess and the self-hatred of guys like Jasper (and me).But I think Jasper believes the way many of us did in the early days of studying non-stranger sexual violence.  He sees a boy’s default setting as non-sexually violent, but believes the wrong rearing and education can turn almost any boy into a rapist.  It’s probably a distinction without a difference for the MRA’s, but I think it’s important.  I also think, unfortunately, that Jasper is wrong.As I’ve written in this space before, the best research we have shows that most men, regardless of what they’re taught, naturally won’t commit acts of sexual violence.   A good upbringing certainly promotes respect for women and a view of them that isn’t grossly objectifying (although societal cues are anything but helpful).  But what we’ve learned is that, even of the cads and womanizers out there, most naturally recognize and respect the boundaries of consent or incapacitation.  And a minority of men, some of whom seem quite upstanding otherwise, view sexuality in a way that leads them to rape, and that they do so repeatedly and won’t be deterred regardless of what they’re taught as boys.  They do most of the damage.In a way, this is a kind sentiment for men to hear. We’re not, as previously suspected, all potential felons with testosterone fueled libidos in need of restraint. But the other side of the coin is a very dark one indeed.  Domestic violence, it might be argued, is more of a learned behavior.  But where do rapists come from? What causes a boy to emerge in adolescence as a rapist or a sex offender?  The fact is, as researchers like Anna Salter have disturbingly but compellingly suggested, we just don’t know.  A tempting but inaccurate answer is that men who rape or otherwise offend sexually were themselves perpetrated upon as children.  I believed this for a while as an ADA.  But Salter and others have revealed that claims of abuse (over 90% for convicted sex offenders) is almost completely the result of self-reporting.  Even threatening offenders with polygraphs takes that number way down.  Will a sex offender or convicted rapist claim earlier abuse before a sentencing judge?  Of course, because he knows it’ll usually produce a more favorable sentence, and he'll be seen as less of a monster than an offender who alleges no previous abuse.What's much worse is when this argument is reversed; when it's believed that boys and girls who are offended against need to sufficiently “heal” in order not to become abusers.  This "vampire theory" is both appallingly cruel and completely inaccurate.  The vast majority of survivors grow to become more protective and cognizant of the risks when they have or interact with children, even if the pathology they suffered leads them to make bad choices in other areas of their lives.Both of these ideas- one benign but mostly wrong and one malevolent and completely wrong, nevertheless stem from usually well-intentioned, Judeo-Christian efforts to understand evil acts by people allegedly created in His image.  I’ve argued this for years with religious friends who can’t accept that a loving God creates people within whom malignant, torturous things simply bloom and create monstrous behavior. People just aren’t born with broken souls.Except that they might be.I’m only a lawyer; I have neither the ability nor the inclination to draw ontological conclusions.  As my father was snarkily fond of saying when I asked him as a kid what God was thinking about this or that, “I don’t know, I haven’t talked to Him lately.”I'm still religious, and I still don't know.  But I believe what methodological research and my own anecdotal experience suggests: There is evil in the world and we really don’t know where it comes from.  That doesn’t mean that efforts like Jasper's, though, are in vain.  If you view the ad as the MRA’s do (part of a continuing effort to demonize those of us with penises, even tiny innocent babies) then yes, Jasper is a misandrist.  But I don’t think that’s the case.  And there is great value in teaching boys gentleness, decency and even chivalry as long it’s understood that their female counterparts are not fragile, weak things to be protected and lorded over, but equals to be viewed on par in every way.  This is particularly important given how popular culture and Madison Avenue sell and objectify women and sex, and it can be done without eliminating gender roles and the life-affirming interplay of sexuality.  So were I Josh Jasper, I’d adjust fire (a reference I’ll bet he gets as a former Marine) but I wouldn’t back away from seeking to change how men view women.And I’d damn sure be careful to avoid assumptions that are tempting in their ability to explain the unfathomable, but potentially unfair to survivors of abuse or cynically exploited by abusers themselves.  With that said, I wish Josh the best as he continues his mission.  And I'll gladly share the target with him where the vitriol of the men's rights movement is concerned.  Semper Fi.