|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:52 AM July 15th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
It was well that the editor commented… why? Because this is not valid as a means of anything other than in certain cases. Let’s say the editor’s point was a possibility. What would the removal of a woman’s ovaries do? Not much.
Now let’s go back to Keith. What does castration do to alleviate this situation? Is he allowed hormone replacement for his lost gonads? Eunuchs were capable of sex, they just weren’t capable of procreating, and they lacked DRIVE.
However, A man that is molesting anyone of that age (and perhaps any age), may get great pleasure around the whole thing, not just the sex act. The behavior may spring from the natural drive gone too far (fecundity is tied to age, and if your wiring is off then your desire for young would be TOO young – though in the wild anything after puberty is a valid go. I am not suggesting that this is right or proper in today’s settings for context is important too). This is usually a form of sexual sadism (completely different from the voluntary games of the SMBD people – for they do to people what people want to have done).
The reasoning is that unless the molesting children embraced the situation (some do, not knowing better), they were very uncomfortable at the very least, and continuing to do that to someone that way either shows a total lack of empathy (the selfish reason), or that there is pleasure in making your victim squirm (the sadistic reason), or a combination of both. The feminists definitions and reasons don’t help understand this (understanding something isn’t the same as condoning it), which is why we aren’t getting anywhere effectively. If you have false reasoning any fix stemming from that reasoning would most likely not work (there is always chance that a bad idea leads to a good solution). The reason that they have false reasoning is because they are women reasoning for men. They cant say “ok. I have a penis, so this is what it must be like, so this is the conclusion”, they are stuck saying “ok, I have a penis, and it must be a lot like my vagina, and of course if that is so then they have the same drive. If they have the same drive, then nothing would get me to do that to someone unless I hated them so much, and so it must be hatred”. Any man (not mangina for their drives are so stunted. Don’t argue guys, your drive ARE stunted, you may not realize it, but they are, and as such you can then affirm the feminist reasoning because you would not understand a drive or compulsion of this level), could attest that they fight a battle with themselves over their drive. Not that their drive may push them all to do something, for that is so untrue as to put a person knowing better in to a hysterical fit of laughter. strike these acts to several spectrums too far out of center – the first, in this case, being age [not in all cases], poor impulse control [in most cases sans premeditation], empathetic ability, level of guilt, etc. all our qualities exist on spectrum, abberant behavior is seldom original, it usually can be looked at as spectrum extremes (I don’t know if others share this view), that are too left or right. If you disagree let me know of a behavior a crazy (legal not medical term) person has that a normal person doesn’t have in a better way!
If this person’s reason were not totally selfish with total disregard, then they will still be dangerous, and even more so when out! For this person doesn’t get their finality pleasure from the actual genital sex act, that’s just the icing, and we all can and do eat cake without icing.
I will give a short example in a sphere that is more normal. Think of strippers and go-go girls. Many men go to these clubs (as do women! if you have ever been in a club like Scores you see that a large portion of the crowd are women, and that there are many bachelorette parties!), and spend ridiculous amounts of money just to be close. Women when complaining usually don’t realize that the men Can’t touch the ladies the way the ladies CAN touch the men in Chippendales type shows. It’s a total tease. There is no finality. However for many men, this is enough. For some, just looking is enough. (Studies have shown that when a man sees a pretty face he gets an endorphin rush, female beauty is like a drug)
So while orgasm is very necessary for men it is not their sole source of pleasure. (unlike women, for whom orgasm is not necessary – this is not to say women don’t like them and such, they do. And most like sex in some degree. Their orgasm though is not necessary for the procreation of the species. Simple fact, don’t read into it any more than that simple fact, no conclusions necessary – it don’t mean more than that in the physical context. In the psychological context, sex is very important for both men and women, and its manifestation cooperatively in a relationship is a very necessary thing for most of us, though not all),
The court thinks that removing his sexual drive will work, and in most cases it probably does, which is proof that feminist theories on sexual assaults are WRONG! If rape is a hate crime and such against women, and not a selfish act by a person taking what they want, removing their sexual drive would not remove their hate, and would not stop the crime. This would mean that they would go out and still do hate crimes, perhaps using objects in place of their dysfunctional (?) organs. In the vast majority of castration cases they stop! Which would be an indicator that for most it is their drive pushing them in combination with spectrums being off whack and opportunities presenting themselves or being created through orchestration.
However, I think that this is a dangerous route to take as a global offer based on the crime and not the psychology of the person and the psychology of the specific crime. Persons who’s acts showed pleasure in sadistic ways on top of just rape, or molestation (which I am not saying is not sadistic on some levels, but is not really the same thing as plain sadism without the sex or rather in place of sex – if the only sadism was the act itself and nothing was added then sadism probably was not the purpose, it was incidental in that there was no other way to accomplish it without that aspect, other than drugging the person. This would tend to show that that person was probably not being sadistic but trying to take something without he person knowing).
I believe that the actions and play surrounding the situation should be judged to take in the ‘show’ aspects. I do not know if that was done here, we don’t have enough details of what actually went on. these show aspects are important, for they show up in female implemented molestation as well. Though usually more in a manipulative way, getting aquiescance rather than overt force in most situations. For some reason we tend to be more lenient with this behavior from women, when its also the core methodology for men as well, and is much more dangerous and deviant than a person that would be an overt attacker (because the first type can commit their acts for decades and not get caught).
The bottom line is that we are not doing ourselves much service turning the court system into a deal and trades system. It opens the door to all criminals that might not do their act, but now will, because they know they can get a deal. And their reticence would depend on their fantasy of that deal. Legal systems should not be like Chinese restaurant menus. Judges need discretion, but also do prosecutors. We are not doing well solving the numbers problem by playing lets make a deal. We are trying to fix on the back end what should not have been broken in the front end. You can see that over the past 40 years women are worse off from such people, feminist methods have made more of this type of monster, and other than get lots of money for programs have done little to help (or else it would go down).
If we had a healthier attitude about fantasy and such in our own bedrooms with each other, a lot would happen that often would make such acts not worth it. the number of single men (and women) are at a all time high. They are often dysfunctional due to feminist teachings and societies failings and their families destruction. Dysfunctional people have drives but may not have outlets, the same is true of single people.
In the past such men may have been able to find a mate, and that may have been enough. Others may have a mate that would cater to their fantasies and that would have been enough. Of course there would be still people regardless of those things, but there would be less of them. However, the ladies are not marrying the young men, and many are disenfranchised from such women since the majority of the ladies that are actively out there are only going for a small subset of the population (short term mating strategy dominates until she is ready to settle down, then long term strategy dominates).
If a large number of single men are not considered short term material they have nothing to do to vent their biology, until later when other considerations modify the ladies mate selection (under long term strategies more men are acceptable mates).
In a way feminists have exacerbated such situations, of course unintentionally on purpose (think about it for a while). Their repair is to give a selection to the perpetrators, and such. Castration is emasculating in the extreme, not just symbolically (as with a majority of men in society today), but physically as well. He will get a shorter sentence because he has become a non man, and in the eyes of the feminists he is ‘safe’
Not too bright…
Please forgive me for not signing my name.. the subject is too sensitive, and as such I don’t need shitty people playing with my live because I am a thinking man. Those that know me will recognize my writings, its not that hard.
Do not read into it that my words are irrelevant because I didn’t sign it. there is a difference between, not wanting people to know what you wrote because you don’t stand behind it or are being manipulative, and the reason that we now live in a society that does not value free speech anymore and isn’t smart enough to know that.
An article in the paper this morning illustrates this to a T. the American nazi’s cleaned a park and were given a certificate of appreciation from the government. The comment from the official was that they didn’t know who they were giving the certificate to, implying that if they did they wouldn’t have gotten it. why would ideology matter when any group did something nice. imagine living in the opposite situation where the political regime is the nazi party, and the park cleaners are democratic. Then they would not be giving the certificate to a positive group. No one is saying tht the neo Nazis are a positive group (at least not in their current form). However, this behavior is the behavior that would be used to put down the good as well as the bad, and should be discouraged. In fact such things may turn a group around. You cant protect the country or people from such groups by pretending to take away their positive rhetorical works, for then you become the arbiter for what the people see or judge, and become their controller.
Mexico prints stamps.. and the country with the wonderful first amendment gives them shit? Oh, I see, inaliable rights are only inalienable within our borders and when its convenient. For this reason I am now afraid of my government and sometimes letting people know my opinions, especially when I am just taking the ‘wrong’ side just to be a devils advocate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:07 PM July 15th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
"Would the judge have 1) sentenced her to life in jail and 2) offered an ovariectomy to the woman in exchange for imposing a lesser sentence?"
I think the answer is fairly clear. If two teenage boys had been raped, they would have been given the option of having their penises removed so it wouldn't happen again. The woman who had sex with them would've gotten therapy because she would have been the real victim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:50 PM July 15th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
And don't forget, if the female rapist had gotten pregnant from her male victims, those boys would probably have to pay child support.
It's already happened at least once, that I know of.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:22 PM July 15th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
On the face of it this would seem a reasonable proposal but it makes me very uncomfortable. The short press release didn't give any details of the case - e.g. were the girls willing participants and is this a case of statutory rape, or did he use force? Either way the castration solution is wrong for two reasons.
Firstly it's barbaric. The same people who would howl in protest at the practice in some muslim countries of cutting the hand off a thief will happily sit back and accept the castration of males. Cutting bits off people belongs in the middle ages. Such simple-minded ideas have no place in a modern criminal justice system.
And where does it stop? Should women who make false rape allegations have their vaginas sewn up? Should politicians who deliberately lie to the people have their tongues cut out?
Secondly it sets a dangerous precedent. It's but a short step from voluntary castration to compulsory castration and then we'd all better watch out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by robrob on 05:12 AM July 16th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Feminists can never make up their minds whether rape is about power or sex. On the one hand, the "power" argument fits in with their Patriarchy fantasy. The "sex" argument allows them to classify us as walking hormones, unable to control our animal aggression and thus a potential rapist waiting to strike.
In cases like this, castration (chemical or surgical) appeals to a feminist fanstasy of exacting as much evenge as possible against men accused of rape. Witness the gleeful yet sometimes guilty enjoyment of your average American female over the Bobbitt incident. If the "power" argument was used in these cases, then surely an appropriate treatment would involve psychological analysis and treatment. However, given how common this now is (just do a search on google news for "castration" and see how many cases there are like this now), it is apparent that for many feminists, the "rape is power" argument is suitable for womens' studies courses and idealogical purposes while cases that come to court are "Sex" crimes and thus an appropriate sanction is an attack on the "sex" organs - call it revenge if you like. Anyone who points to recidivism rates or the "success" of these tactics might consider that if we simply cut the arms of most murderers, we could reduce their capability to ever murder again. So why don't we do that too?
Like anything, you need consistency. And like others on here, I find it hard to understand why in the entire western world, rapists and rape should be the only crime to be singled out for body revenge modification. Shouldn't all liars, false accusers, child abusers (the majority of physical child abuse cases involve mothers remember!) and others accused of visiting physical or emotional harm on others have an appropriate physical deterrent?
I think we know the answer to this already.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shouldn't all liars, false accusers, child abusers (the majority of physical child abuse cases involve mothers remember!) and others accused of visiting physical or emotional harm on others have an appropriate physical deterrent?
Damn good point!
Sadly, as you stated, we already know the answer to that. Feminists only want the pluses of equality, but none of the minuses. They want all the good, but none of the bad.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:54 AM July 17th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
NAPNIP!!!
You're back!!
Where the heck ya been?!?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:41 AM July 18th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Life in prison for rape? Rape is not murder! Oh but it's equivilant because they were women! Feminist need to be murdered in mass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:57 AM July 18th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Easy does it, there.
I know the situation is bad, right now, and the feminists and their wussie-poopie fem-boy lap dogs frustrate even the most paitient of us, but I don't think advocating killing them is such a good idea.
For one thing they are human, like us. (although that seems debatable at times) they are flawed (More so than the average person) and drastic mesures ARE indeed needed to stop them. But let's work legislativly and through peaceful activism for the time being. Let's try to do this civily, for now. If a time comes for civil war, I'll be right there to fight against the feminist tyrany, but let's just hope it doesn't come to that. I don't think it will. We are already making progress. It is slow but steady. We need paitence and logic and the moral high-ground. Because if not we could become the very thing we are fighting against. It happened to the feminists. One day they were fighting for women's equality (or so they said) now they are fighting for gender supermacy. They are no different than the Nazis in this regard. They just haven't commited haulocaust, yet. But I believe that they would if we allowed it.
But we aren't going to allow it.
Talking of murdering them is understandable. This battle is frustrating at times. But would killing them make us any better than them? No, it wouldn't. It would make us the SAME as them. That's not the type of equality we're looking for.
We don't want them dead. We just want them stopped.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:00 PM July 18th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Abortion's killed 1/3rd of this generation, they're having there holocaust.
How will we get rid of womens vote through legislation? I don't think it's possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:28 AM July 19th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
You make a valid point. I too am pro-life.
I'm just saying that we do not want to become like them. Let us try a different kind of attack. Theirs is based on death, intimidation, and decite. I just don't think we want to go that rout.
But believe me, I DO understand your position and your frustration.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Anonymous User writes "A man who admitted raping two young girls in the US