Why don’t we castrate rapists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because rape isn’t about sex, it’s about power and violence.

Penises aren't about sex either, they're about urination. And if used sexually with the intent to rape, they're not about sex, they're about power and violence. F*** off with your gaslighting.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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

[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.

+100

[Anonymous]

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.

Funny how a victim's rage is shamed and pathologized, while the real "pervert" behavior gets protected. Not the PP you're replying to but I honestly find you disgusting.

[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.

Funny how a victim's rage is shamed and pathologized, while the real "pervert" behavior gets protected. Not the PP you're replying to but I honestly find you disgusting.

+1

NP but it is not perverted to be incredibly angry and want extreme punishment for a rapist. You are a prime example of how we do not value women or children in this country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I could be pro castration for repeat offenders, but reading the Anthony Broadwater case is heartbreaking. That woman made millions ruining an innocent man’s life. Imagine if he had also been castrated.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/05/29/the-tortured-bond-of-alice-sebold-and-the-man-wrongfully-convicted-of-her-rape#:~:text=29%2C%202023%20Issue-,The%20Tortured%20Bond%20of%20Alice%20Sebold%20and%20the%20Man%20Wrongfully,justice%20is%20a%20difficult%20dream.

Not clicking through. I trust his DNA was NOT present?
We are talking about DNA proven cases nowadays.

Gotta love people arguing for castration are too lazy to “click through”.

Or doesn’t trust the link

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Because not everyone who is convicted is guilty. There are enough innocent people convicted that it would be inhumane to castrate all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because not everyone who is convicted is guilty. There are enough innocent people convicted that it would be inhumane to castrate all.

But death penalty is ok?

[Anonymous]

Well that punishment is permanent and what if it were your husband or son that was castrated? Very few rapes are witnessed by policemen and there are a fair number of wrongful convictions and false reports.
Forcing consumption of an SSRI or some other chemical that causes impotence but can be withdrawn with no lasting damage might be better but there are no such compounds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not interested in muddying the waters here with other crimes. Not cutting off people's hands and stoning people for adultery or caning them in the town square for whatever.

Specifically using a penis in a violent assualt on a person, proven with DNA, I have no problem taking the penis away.

And if a woman uses her reproductive organs to commit a violent assault on a person, sure. Violent. Good luck finding a case of that.

And a hysterectomy with vaginal obliteration would be a huge surgery. And I think you can't just get rid of the vagina due to menstruation. Maybe we lock those women up forever because a snip snip is not going to be adequate.

What about violent assault with hands? Sticking to the subject, say someone violates another person with their hands/fingers. Do they lose the hands/fingers in question? Or are penises special?

Yes. Penises are special. Ask a woman who has been raped.

Ask women who have been digitally penetrated vs. forced intercourse.

ESPECIALLY now that we are losing the right to abort rapist's babies. Force a woman to accept your sperm, lose your d*ck.

Again, you don't need a penis, or any body part, to rape. I'd personally rather be raped with a penis than a baseball bat or broken bottle, because the vagina is designed to accommodate a penis. This is why castration is pointless. The perp will simply use something else, and you might *really* not like what they choose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because not everyone who is convicted is guilty. There are enough innocent people convicted that it would be inhumane to castrate all.

But death penalty is ok?

NP. Are you the moron who keeps posting this? I’m trying to understand how someone sees a comment about “But what about wrongly convicted people?” and somehow believes that poster is a big proponent of the death penalty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree, OP. I think that if castration was a known punishment, a lot of would-be rapists would check themselves.

I fully support it.

F*** anyone who shames anger or tells rape survivors to "manage anger" or "overcome bitterness" or turn into a forgiveness machine until we're dead-eyed and drooling robots. That's brainwashing. Forcing forgiveness through toxic therapy (I can't tell you how often this happens) destroys souls.

Anger saves lives and hearts.

Castration is a fitting and entirely appropriate punishment.

Especially since they have decided that they own our wombs now, even if we have been raped.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems appropriate for pedophiles/rapists.

I hope this sentiment holds when the list of high profile rapists and family pedophiles are named.