with the rise and fall of a certain famous savior blog, I've noticed more than a few people make posts saying things like "rapists are inherently irredeemable, dni if you think rapists can be redeemed". and I feel like this is an attitude I've noticed a lot on here- which I don't think is inherently bad, I'm all for condemning rapists, genuinely- but I think there's a sort of slippery slope here that I want to examine.

I've noticed many times people on here will oversimplify things that I feel like have more nuance than that- I've seen this about certain kinks, complex queer identities, drugs and alcohol, self harm and eating disorders, plurality/syscourse, therianthropy/kinning/alterhumanity, all sorts of things that may be controversial. people on here, who are quite uneducated on the subject ⟪which is expected as many of you guys are young teenagers⟫, will make posts saying black and white statements like "all people who do [x] are trash" or "if you don't support [y] you're a piece of shit and I hope you kill yourself", without really bothering to do any proper research on the situation.

regarding rapists specifically- I do genuinely believe that rape as a crime is the worst thing a single person can do. there's never an excuse for it, it's abhorrent. I do not think I could ever be comfortable being friends with a rapist, or a person who excuses a rape as "not that bad"- that is AWFUL. however, I do not like the attitude of people saying rapists are "inherently irredeemable". that feels like an unjust oversimplification of the situation.

rape occurs as a result of MANY interlocking systems of oppression, and isn't just the consequence of one person who is "inherently evil". in fact, that attitude of a rapist being "inherently evil" is what, surprisingly, causes a lot of rapists to get off scott-free. people mythologize the act of rape as something that only an evil villain can do, so when someone accuses their super cool, nice, gentle buddy John of rape, they react super negatively- "John would never do that !! he's sweet, he's nice, he bakes cookies and donates to charity !! he isn't an evil villain, I don't believe you".

this isn't just a pointless example, I swear. though "John" isn't a real guy, this is the same thing that has been said So Many Times about people accused of rape- "he would never do that, he's such a nice young boy, a rape on his record would ruin his promising future !!". believing rapists to be these inherently evil, irredeemable monsters is what causes that sort of reaction.

and, also, I don't think it's okay to ever think that something makes a person irredeemable. and let me be very very clear right here- you never EVER have to forgive a rapist for what they did. especially if you are a victim- don't let anyone tell you that you "have to" forgive your rapist. that is messed up, that isn't okay. you should never be pressured to forgive someone who hurt you in that way.

however. like I said, rape is a result of many interlocking systems of opression, and one of those systems is a lack of rehabilitation for rapists. the reason for that is, in part, because of that same belief- that once someone commits rape, they can never get better. they're just "inherently evil". they cannot change their ways, they're doomed to be horrible forever. with no way out, with no systems in place to allow rapists to learn how to be better people again, they're almost doomed to repeat. it's a self fulfilling prophecy.

I think that instead of a blanket statement like "all rapists are inherently irredeemable", a better way to address it is "rape is an irredeemable crime, but I believe rapists should be rehabilitated and helped to be better". it might seem like the same thing, but it's really really not. the first one is a black and white way of thinking that sorts people into "good" and "bad" objectively. the second acknowledges how absolutely horrible of an act rape is, akgnolwedges that that act should never be forgiven, but still allows space for redemption- people aren't black and white, and a person can get better from being a rapist.

for a personal example- though I have never been raped, I have been in an abusive relationship. there was very extreme emotional abuse that still affects me severely today, and some of that abuse was coercing me to partake in sexual acts before I was ready. I will never forgive my abuser for doing that to me. however, my abuser has gotten better. they went to therapy for a year, and have started taking medication. since then they've apologized to me so so so so many times for what they've done- I can tell they've gotten so much better. I will never forgive them for what they did- they hurt me in ways that are so much worse than anything I've ever experienced prior or since. but I can still acknowledged they're better now. I'm happy that they're recovering. I'm glad that they now have the chance to have a normal life, and I'm really happy they're never going to hurt anyone like that again.

if, instead, my abuser had believed they were "inherently irredeemable", they probably would have never gotten help. that was, actually, part of why they didn't get help for so long- they believed that they were too far gone, would constantly break down in front of me telling me they were ""sorry"" for how they treated me but they knew they could never change, so "could you just handle it, for me ??". it took the intervention of their family, and even my compassion in telling them they can still get better, and many many months, for them to start that recovery. they would have still been an abuser if they had believed they were "inherently irredeemable"- I would still be in an abusive relationship, or they would have moved on from me and ruined someone elses life instead.

so yes, I understand not forgiving a rapist, of course I do. I understand- even if they didn't hurt you personally- not wanting to be acquaintances with a rapist, even if they have recovered, that is 100% your right ⟪I'm not sure how comfortable I would be with that either to be honest⟫. but I do not support this black and white view of morality that claims there are some things a person can do that makes them "too far gone" from redemption, because that sort of belief perpetuates the cycle of abuse, in a way that I hope I have made clear enough by now.

I know it might seem inconsequential to say stuff like that, and if someone is just venting about their abuser I understand, the amount of times I've said "I hope they suffer forever, I want to ruin their life" about my abuser despite not believing that genuinely is a lot because it's cathartic to me, trust me I understand !!

but if you do genuinely believe in that sort of black and white view of morality, I hope you reconsider that way of thinking- I think it can be harmful, especially as I've noticed it leads to people being extremely negative about things they perceive as also "inherently irredeemable".

there's a very extreme purity culture I've noticed on jiraiblr that maybe I'll go into in more detail in the future, but for now I'll just say that I find it quite scary when people will put people into boxes of "inherently irredeemable" and "inherently morally pure" with no in between based on arbitrary things like headcanons or ships or fandoms. since, like I said, this whole thing started with a certain famous savior blog, I've noticed a lot of criticism of cult-like behaivor, but the same people that have called out that blog participate in the same cult-like behaivor in just a slightly different way- dog-piling on certain blogs for breaking their "rules" once they get marked as "inherently irredeemable".

I hope this all makes sense and if you read this far I really appreciate you, I just needed to get this out. thank you !! I care all you guys, again <3