Re: Castration.

P Diddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message:
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: 

> 
> "Neil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> P Diddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message:
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>
>> >
>> > "Neil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> P Diddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message:
>> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > "Neil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> >> P Diddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message:
>> >> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "Neil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> >> >> P Diddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message:
>> >> >> >> news:RGSwb.28321 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > "Yin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> >> >> >> What do you think about castration for sex offenses?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Do you mean chemical or physical?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> What do you think of either?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> -- 
>> >> >> >> Neil
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I would think pyhsical would be worse than chemical. If it
>> >> >> > was physical, that in effect would take away some of your
>> >> >> > masculinity, wouldn't it? Chemical would mean you'd still
>> >> >> > have your penis...just not a lot of blood going up there...I
>> >> >> > think. 
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hmmm.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Still, you almost got there - physical castration is
>> >> >> effectively irreversible, whereas chemical castration shouldn't
>> >> >> be. 
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But saying that one is "worse" doesn't really tell me what you
>> >> >> think - should sex offenders get the 'worst', or do you think
>> >> >> they lose a right to their masculinity?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -- 
>> >> >> Neil
>> >> >
>> >> > No state or country should have the power to REMOVE a bodily
>> >> > organ of a human
>> >> > being period.... physical castration is cruel and unusual
>> >> > punishment.
>> >>
>> >> ok.
>> >>
>> >> Should the state have the power to enforce the chemical
>> >> alternative? 
>> >
>> > It's my understanding that chemical castration just reduces sex
>> > drive, and is not always effective anyway.
>> > But in answer to your question...no...I don't think the state
>> > should have the power. You punish the person for the rape by
>> > putting them in jail. After they have served
>> > their time...they SHOULD be free. And anyway, the penis is just ONE
>> > instrument of rape. You can rape someone with a screwdriver,
>> > banana, your tongue, list goes on. Chemical castration would not
>> > stop those ways.
>>
>> Are you sure about that?
> 
> If a woman had her vagina penetrated by let's say a dildo, by a man
> she didn't know, didn't like...
> for an hour or so, I don't think she'd call 911 and say it was a
> dildo. I think she'd say she had just been raped.
> And if a man ate the woman out forcibly, what would YOU call it. See
> me...I'd call it rape.
> 
>>
>> Do you think, for example, that the reduction in testosterone levels
>> might result in a reduction in aggression, which might in turn make
>> the person in question less likely to offend?
> 
> I don't know

i know.

> ...why does a rapist rape? Is it control? Is it sex? And
> if it is control, would lowering testosterone levels stop it?
> Do you need testosterone to control?

Do you have even the tiniest shred of evidence that control is a motive?

There is a correlation between reducing the testosterone levels of 
violent male offenders (not only rapists), and their rate of reoffending.  
Some of these offenders have claimed that while the urge to offend is 
still with them, the desire to act on it is greatly reduced.

In answer to your question, a rapist's motives are peculiar to that 
rapist.  In some cases controlling testosterone levels would be 
effective;  in some cases it wouldn't.  You never got back to me with an 
opinion on voluntary castration.

-- 
Neil