Why don’t we castrate rapists?

[Anonymous]

I personally think pap smears are torture and were invented by a male, there is also female genital mutilation, so castrating rapists seems logical and equivalent. If we regulated men's testosterone as much as we regulate women's hormones there might not be as many rapists, school shootings or wars.

[Anonymous]

The time machine should go back to Hammurabi, not medieval times. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP: You do not seem to acknowledge that women can rape others. Years ago, this was a serious problem at a well known all female college.

DP but I have to respond here. Why are female rapists only being brought up now? I've discussed female rapists (...attempted to discuss, actually) in threads about toxic femininity, only to be shouted down in favor of a fake "girl power/YAS QUEEN!" chorus of female narcissists in denial. And I'm a woman who was sexually abused by other women. And men.

There are countless depictions of toxic femininity in TV and film, all of it either glorified or at least justified. Nobody wants to discuss that.

Yet I find it really weird that all of a sudden woman abusers need to be brought up in a thread about male abusers. Why are you trying to deflect and scapegoat, PP? Why don't you want to acknowledge that it's inherently f***ed up that our society protects penises at all costs, even in the case of rape?

I've been raped by women and hear me well: male rapists deserve castration. The women who raped me deserve to have their cl*ts removed, frankly, and both male and female rapists deserve jail time.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The time machine should go back to Hammurabi, not medieval times. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

Save your time machine for the Republicans who made abortion illegal.

[Anonymous]

Op, you sound just as crazy as the person you want castrated. Can be we be done with crazies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so don’t castrate but allow the victim to release her anger on the perp.

How do you feel about the Iranian and Saudi practice of amputating a thief’s hand?

[Anonymous]

Remember when Steve Bannon said that the appropriate punishment for his political enemies is "heads on pikes"? Did you guys tell him to go back to the medieval ages too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The constitution protects agains cruel and unusual punishment…

That’s not cruel and unusual to me. Seems entirely appropriate.

Because unlike them, we are civilized and don't solve problems with violence.

Or take/do whatever we want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems appropriate for pedophiles/rapists.

Hey MAPs are people too...

???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because--at least in theory--our system allows for perpetrators of crimes to be deprived of freedom and time but not of body parts and human capacities.

The death penalty is an unusual outlier--you could see it as a deprivation of all human capacities (thus as a violation of the Constitutional concept of cruel and unusual punishment, which is prohibited), or you could look at it as someone having time and freedom removed in a finite way (and thus as consistent with the Constitution, and therefore allowed).

But the extent to which it is an outlier is also part of why it's been so hotly contested, even in the lifetimes of most of us posting here.

If you're jazzed up by the idea of cutting off limbs or removing organs as punishment for crimes as determined in a court system as deeply flawed as the one we are living with today, you're kind of a pervert yourself. I wouldn't be running around bragging about that, which is probably why you're doing it here as an anon.

Not just anonymously, I’ve done it in my work and written several white papers on this issue.

That tracks. Academics are all in on fighting for and protecting male privilege above all else these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I personally think pap smears are torture and were invented by a male, there is also female genital mutilation, so castrating rapists seems logical and equivalent. If we regulated men's testosterone as much as we regulate women's hormones there might not be as many rapists, school shootings or wars.

PAP was invented to save lives and has done so millions and millions of times since the technique was invented by a likely misogynist Greek immigrant physician. Although it may seem barbaric I don’t see another way, how would you propose getting a sample of cervical tissue to check for various diseases?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because--at least in theory--our system allows for perpetrators of crimes to be deprived of freedom and time but not of body parts and human capacities.

The death penalty is an unusual outlier--you could see it as a deprivation of all human capacities (thus as a violation of the Constitutional concept of cruel and unusual punishment, which is prohibited), or you could look at it as someone having time and freedom removed in a finite way (and thus as consistent with the Constitution, and therefore allowed).

But the extent to which it is an outlier is also part of why it's been so hotly contested, even in the lifetimes of most of us posting here.

If you're jazzed up by the idea of cutting off limbs or removing organs as punishment for crimes as determined in a court system as deeply flawed as the one we are living with today, you're kind of a pervert yourself. I wouldn't be running around bragging about that, which is probably why you're doing it here as an anon.

Not just anonymously, I’ve done it in my work and written several white papers on this issue.

That tracks. Academics are all in on fighting for and protecting male privilege above all else these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because--at least in theory--our system allows for perpetrators of crimes to be deprived of freedom and time but not of body parts and human capacities.

The death penalty is an unusual outlier--you could see it as a deprivation of all human capacities (thus as a violation of the Constitutional concept of cruel and unusual punishment, which is prohibited), or you could look at it as someone having time and freedom removed in a finite way (and thus as consistent with the Constitution, and therefore allowed).

But the extent to which it is an outlier is also part of why it's been so hotly contested, even in the lifetimes of most of us posting here.

If you're jazzed up by the idea of cutting off limbs or removing organs as punishment for crimes as determined in a court system as deeply flawed as the one we are living with today, you're kind of a pervert yourself. I wouldn't be running around bragging about that, which is probably why you're doing it here as an anon.

Not just anonymously, I’ve done it in my work and written several white papers on this issue.

That tracks. Academics are all in on fighting for and protecting male privilege above all else these days.

This is true. And sad to say, I've actually seen some female colleagues supporting the patriarchy in academia. Intelligence or education have no effect on Stockholm Syndrome or female rivalry/insecurity, apparently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The constitution protects agains cruel and unusual punishment…

That’s not cruel and unusual to me. Seems entirely appropriate.

Because unlike them, we are civilized and don't solve problems with violence.

Or take/do whatever we want.

Of course we solve problems with violence. THis is America. We currently castrate as a punishment. We kill people as a punishment. We inflict war as a punishment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Castration isn’t going to stop someone from raping, if it’s what you’re asking.

Castration is a punishment for raping.

Let me spell it out for you: not having a penis or having a numb one isn’t going to stop someone from raping. Unless you cut off the rapist’s hands, mouth & feet, too.