Even then, you’re not raised a rapist, you would have been raised someone who is more likely to become a rapist. You aren’t that until you actually become it. I don’t think we should be accusing anyone of anything before they’ve even done it. You should absolutely call out any shitty behavior that leads you to suspect they’ll do harm to others wither it’s rape, murder, or some other crime. By saying they already were a rapist or raised as a rapist you’re taking away their free agency and kind ironically saying it wasn’t their fault that’s just how they were raised.
Thought provoking comment, thanks. If I’m interpreting what you’re saying correctly, there are people who find rape attractive, where they get off on the idea of raping someone. But a person feeling that way should not be called a rapist, because that’s a term that should be reserved for those who have actually committed the act of rape. Perhaps some psychological or medical term should be used for the rape-attracted instead?
That’s interesting, and complicates my worldview slightly. To shift topic, I’d begun to separate the idea of a pedophile from a child rapist. Because if someone has attractions to children, it’s not the same thing as that person being sexually involved with them. At first this seems to reinforce what I interpret you’re saying. Where the same term “pedo” is inappropriately used for both those who have and haven’t hurt children.
However, in the “pedo” case those who haven’t hurt children had the name first, and then that name was extended by popular culture to also mean those who have hurt children. Whereas with rapist it’s the reverse, where the common term is for the person who has committed the act, but there isn’t a common term for one who hasn’t.
And there’s a third case. In some cases we’ve begun to separate actions and defining a person by them. For example, “alcoholic” vs “someone with alcohol use disorder”, because someone can receive treatment and stop using alcohol. So, is there a potential third term for someone who stops raping? I think not, at least not anytime soon. There’s no known effective treatment for having attractions. For example, conversion therapy to “cure” homosexuality was nothing less than torture and also a complete failure. Chemical castration doesn’t remove attractions either, just sex drive. Modern therapy for various attractions involves helping the person accept the attraction not trying to remove the attraction. Therefore, if someone rapes once does that mean they should be forever defined as a rapist? In the present day, I’d say yes. Perhaps in the future we’ll have advanced our knowledge of medicine and the mind to be able to change attractions, but right now that’s simply not possible.
A lot of people seem to hate the idea that someone who is capable of coming up with or having some sort of affinity towards an activity and someone who has already committed that activity are separate. Mostly, they would point out that you need active pressure of society or laws to prevent the behavior.
Personally, I think active prevention, separating the concepts of impulse from activity, and working with people who are generally maladapted to society, but haven’t committed any actual harm would be a good thing, but these kinds of concepts have a lot of pushback from people.
Even then, you’re not raised a rapist, you would have been raised someone who is more likely to become a rapist. You aren’t that until you actually become it. I don’t think we should be accusing anyone of anything before they’ve even done it. You should absolutely call out any shitty behavior that leads you to suspect they’ll do harm to others wither it’s rape, murder, or some other crime. By saying they already were a rapist or raised as a rapist you’re taking away their free agency and kind ironically saying it wasn’t their fault that’s just how they were raised.
Thought provoking comment, thanks. If I’m interpreting what you’re saying correctly, there are people who find rape attractive, where they get off on the idea of raping someone. But a person feeling that way should not be called a rapist, because that’s a term that should be reserved for those who have actually committed the act of rape. Perhaps some psychological or medical term should be used for the rape-attracted instead?
That’s interesting, and complicates my worldview slightly. To shift topic, I’d begun to separate the idea of a pedophile from a child rapist. Because if someone has attractions to children, it’s not the same thing as that person being sexually involved with them. At first this seems to reinforce what I interpret you’re saying. Where the same term “pedo” is inappropriately used for both those who have and haven’t hurt children.
However, in the “pedo” case those who haven’t hurt children had the name first, and then that name was extended by popular culture to also mean those who have hurt children. Whereas with rapist it’s the reverse, where the common term is for the person who has committed the act, but there isn’t a common term for one who hasn’t.
And there’s a third case. In some cases we’ve begun to separate actions and defining a person by them. For example, “alcoholic” vs “someone with alcohol use disorder”, because someone can receive treatment and stop using alcohol. So, is there a potential third term for someone who stops raping? I think not, at least not anytime soon. There’s no known effective treatment for having attractions. For example, conversion therapy to “cure” homosexuality was nothing less than torture and also a complete failure. Chemical castration doesn’t remove attractions either, just sex drive. Modern therapy for various attractions involves helping the person accept the attraction not trying to remove the attraction. Therefore, if someone rapes once does that mean they should be forever defined as a rapist? In the present day, I’d say yes. Perhaps in the future we’ll have advanced our knowledge of medicine and the mind to be able to change attractions, but right now that’s simply not possible.
A lot of people seem to hate the idea that someone who is capable of coming up with or having some sort of affinity towards an activity and someone who has already committed that activity are separate. Mostly, they would point out that you need active pressure of society or laws to prevent the behavior.
Personally, I think active prevention, separating the concepts of impulse from activity, and working with people who are generally maladapted to society, but haven’t committed any actual harm would be a good thing, but these kinds of concepts have a lot of pushback from people.
I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not… But there are legitimately people that do rape roleplay.