Castration for sex offenders

[Legs]

This is an article I came across this morning. It starts with a sex offender in a Virginia County Jail who castrates himself with a razor. He said he didn't want to molest children anymore, he also had another motive, being that he thought castration might keep him out of the State prison.

Since cutting off his testicles and flushing them down the toilet in his cell he reports he is finally free of fantasizing about children and he no longer has the urge to molest.

The article goes on to discuss castration,(chemical & surgical), which states allow it and argues both sides about it's effectiveness on sex offenders.

"Castration does not completely erase sexual arousal or function," Dennis said. "It doesn't completely obliterate arousal, drive or the ability to commit a sex act."

Dennis Carpenter, a clinical psychologist called by the defense, disagreed. Studies have shown, he said, that castration sharply reduces the risk of repeat offenses.

One Danish study suggested the rate of repeat offenses dropped from 80 percent to 2.3 percent after surgical castration.

Linky

I wonder if being castrated would drepress and enrage someone to continue attacks on victims. Is is strictly a sexual urge that makes someone rape? are they not getting something else out of it, emotional or psychological?

[Beth]

Oh, gosh. Now, I can feel for those who truly are desparing over their attraction to kids. Hopefully this drastic measure will truly destroy his desire.

[Legs]

I was thinking the same thing, Beth. People who know they need help and are open to this extreme option need support.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by Legs

Is is strictly a sexual urge that makes someone rape? are they not getting something else out of it, emotional or psychological?

That's a contentious issue. Some people insist that rape is "all about" power, but I don't believe it.


The widespread belief in some circles is that rape has nothing to do with sex, and is all about one person using sexual means to demean another and so exert power over him or her.

Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer caught a lot of flak for saying something so politically charged, but their argument was: "nonsense." From an evolutionary perspective, we should expect a certain percentage of men to commit rape if and when the opportunity arises.

What Thornhill and Palmer pointed out was that if rape was only about power, and that most men commit rape in order to "disempower" women, as many people believe -- then the majority of women raped should be older women with established careers who pose a "threat" to insecure males.

On the other hand, if rape is an evolutionary "strategy" for men to get their genes into the next generation when no other means are available, then the majority of women raped should be in their late teens and early 20s -- when they're most fertile. According to Thornhill and Palmer's research, this is the case -- women in their late teens and early 20s are far more likely to be raped than are women in their 40s or 50s, who should be the primary victims if rape is about establishing dominance.



According to this hypothesis, a large percentage (though not necessarily the majority) of rapes are committed by "desperate" men who -- because they feel marginalized from society, or believe themselves to be completely unappealing to women, or whatever -- feel that they have no hope of securing mates "legitimately." From the completely amoral "logic" of natural selection, a man who cannot secure a mate any other way "should" commit rape if the opportunity arises.

What Thornhill and Palmer pointed out was that it would be truly astonishing if there wasn't a genetic tendency for men who couldn't secure mates "legitimately" to resort to rape if the opportunity presented itself and they could be reasonably certain of getting away with it. That way, there would be some hope of passing on their genes. (I've heard an astonishingly large number of people claim that a woman cannot become pregnant through rape -- that's simply untrue.)

Not everyone wanted to hear Thornhill and Palmer's argument, however.



On the other hand, among mammals, it's extremely common for dominant individuals to use sex -- either symbolic sex or actual sex -- to demonstrate their dominance over subordinates. Even females will often mount subordinates and use pelvic thrusts to exert dominance.

This tendency to use (symbolic) sex to exert dominance even manifests itself in our language. The upraised middle finger is generally believed to represent an erect penis being thrust into a vagina or other orifice, and the phrase "Fuck you" originally had an "I" in front of it.


So, I think it's surely the case that a certain percentage of rapes (perhaps the majority; perhaps not) are committed by men* who feel "disempowered" in one way or another and are seeking a victim upon whom they can vent their frustrations and assert dominance. Since women are generally easier to overpower, it's hardly surprising that most rape victims are female.


In humans, there's the additional factor that we know sex is an intimate act that normally occurs only between people who love (or at least like) and trust each other. This makes rape all the more effective as a means of asserting dominance through intimidation and degradation.


None of these hypotheses are mutually exclusive, of course.


*And women. Women can and do commit rape as well. Of course, it's far more difficult for the average woman to overpower the average man than vice-versa, but female-female rape is probably a lot more common than most people would ever guess, and female-male rape does occur. (Some researchers have suggested that it's a lot more common than most of us realize, because few men will admit to being raped by another man, much less by a woman.)


Cheers,

Michael

[Annie]

Originally Posted by Legs

Is it strictly a sexual urge that makes someone rape?
are they not getting something else out of it, emotional?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

That's a contentious issue. Some people insist that rape is "all about" power, but I don't believe it.


The widespread belief in some circles is that rape has nothing to do with sex, and is all about one person using sexual means to demean another and so exert power over him or her.

On the other hand, if rape is an evolutionary "strategy" for men to get their genes into the next generation when no other means are available, then the majority of women raped should be in their late teens and early 20s -- when they're most fertile. According to Thornhill and Palmer's research, this is the case -- women in their late teens and early 20s are far more likely to be raped than are women in their 40s or 50s, who should be the primary victims if rape is about establishing dominance. Cheers, Michael

Is that? what you're gonna tell the seriously harmed 1-10 year old children (of both sexes) who got raped by grandpa, dad, uncle, cousin, doctor, preacher, blah, blah

Annie

[Legs]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

That's a contentious issue. Some people insist that rape is "all about" power, but I don't believe it.

I agree, I have often mulled over about that commonly made statement as well.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

(I've heard an astonishingly large number of people claim that a woman cannot become pregnant through rape -- that's simply untrue.)

How can people be so ignorant? That's just crazy talk.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Even females will often mount subordinates and use pelvic thrusts to exert dominance.

Yes, my dog is a lesbian and she humps other females.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

female-female rape is probably a lot more common than most people would ever guess, and female-male rape does occur.

I see much more of this in the news lately, like it is losing it's taboo to reach the headlines.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Cheers,Michael

As always, Michael ~ thanks for your great posts & contributions to the board.