Oversimplifying Men: A Flawed Approach

Oversimplifying Men

When laws and society speak of gender-based crimes, they often carry an invisible bias: men are reduced to crude stereotypes, whilst women are recognised as complex beings with layered experiences. This imbalance is not only unjust but also unscientific. One of the most glaring examples of this problem is the so-called potency test in rape cases, but the issue extends far beyond it — to molestation, stalking, harassment, marital disputes, custody battles and even digital crimes.

Potency Tests

In rape investigations, one of the most unscientific and discriminatory practices still in circulation is the so-called potency test of men. This outdated method is based on biased assumptions and reduces male sexuality to a crude biological mechanism, ignoring the psychological, emotional and situational realities of human intimacy. The potency test assumes that if a man is physiologically capable of a penile erection, he must also be capable of committing rape. This is not just unscientific — it is dehumanising. Male sexuality is equally complex; it is not a simple on/off switch. Stress, moral conflict, lack of attraction, fear, or simple unwillingness can all prevent arousal. Treating “potency” as proof of guilt reduces men to biological machines, disregarding consent, context and values.

Case Studies

Molestation

In molestation cases, a man’s intent is often presumed solely from physical contact. Yet human interactions are rarely so one-dimensional. Accidental touch, cultural habits, professional contexts, or even mutual engagement can all be misinterpreted. Nevertheless, the system often assumes that a man’s every action must be sexually motivated, stripping him of the presumption of innocence.

Stalking laws, whilst necessary to protect women from genuine harassment, often hinge on subjective perception. A woman’s discomfort may automatically translate into a man’s guilt, even when the interaction could be explained by mutual history, miscommunication, or misunderstanding. Men are cast as inevitable pursuers, their intentions presumed rather than proven.

In workplaces, men are increasingly vulnerable to allegations of harassment where context is overlooked. A joke, a compliment, or even an innocent gesture may be interpreted as sexual in nature, regardless of intent. The system frequently assumes that men act with a hidden agenda, whilst women’s interpretations are given full weight.

The bias extends to marital disputes and custody battles. Dowry and domestic violence laws often assume male guilt without thorough investigation, whilst custody disputes tend to sideline fathers as though nurturing is exclusively a female domain. In matters of inheritance too, women’s choices are often given priority over men’s, as though men’s autonomy were negotiable.

Modern challenges such as sextortion and digital blackmail disproportionately affect men, yet their victimhood is rarely acknowledged. The law has been slow to recognise men as legitimate victims of online abuse. Here again, the stereotype persists: men are aggressors by default, never victims.

Pornographic Myth

Across all these contexts, one myth persists — that men are biologically wired to act, pursue and dominate. This is a pornographic simplification of human behaviour. Life is not pornography. Men, like women, are shaped by values, emotions, fears, choices and contexts. To deny this is to deny men their humanity.

Towards Human-Centred Justice

What is needed is a shift from gendered presumptions to a human-centred approach. Allegations must not be treated as convictions. Unscientific practices, such as potency tests, must be abolished. Laws must recognise that consent, dignity and autonomy apply to men as much as to women. Justice should not be reduced to protecting one gender by dehumanising the other.

True justice lies in treating all human beings with equal respect for their complexity. To protect women at the expense of men’s humanity is not justice — it is merely injustice in disguise.