Well, friends this response has no humor to be misinterpreted. I'm really kind of stunned and disappointed at all of your "vigilante" mentality.

God, I can just see the lot of you, armed with pitch forks, hoes (the garden kind, mother), and various sharply pointed instruments, torch in your other hand, storming the castle , once and for all, to rid the peaceful counry side of Frankenstein's child.

This of course, being fueled by Jesus's veiled, gross generalizations presented as esoteric, academic, white washed, fact! No elaboration as to why his individuals must suffer life imprisonment, or any attempt to see if the crime truly deserves the punishment.

(Don't confuse him with facts, folks, he writes like he knows what he's talking about so let's just jump to the meat of the post and cut it, snip it, or just rip it off that hot, sweaty, testosterone engorged, massively built, wife beating, queer bashing, pedophilic inmate who may or may not even come close to deserving such speculation.

What do we care? He deserves it or he wouldn't be there! Besides, we have needs and rights too and the very idea of it keeps our dicks dripping for hours. Then if we get enough people to agree with us, light torches, storm the Castle, then we become a majority and have our little fantasies validated. It becomes our civic duty to act as self appointed judges of such inequities in our penal system. (Mob mentality, what's that?)

Ah, then gun slinger Eric, shoots from the hip without bothering to see if his target is friend or foe! Born a hundred years too late, Son! (However, the next time I'm forming a posse to get the bad guys, if I'm sure there is one, you'll be the first I'll call to saddle up.) I know I can count on you to shoot first and ask questions later. (Kill 'em all!! Let God sort 'em out!)

Okay, I lied in the first sentence! Here's the humor in all this! For all my years of trying to figure out mankind through therapy and study, I never cease to be amamzed that the folks that should be the most understanding, liberal persons striving to become lights of reason (especially due to their rather exotic taste in fantasy fiction) develop some of the most inflexible, off the wall, fascist, police state ideas to pump up their own diminished egos with a bit of "let's play like" titillation. (Hey, guys! Wouldn't it be great if we could have public castrations and penectomys.....and I know just the group to pick on!! Come on, let's get 'em.......!)

If the poor son's of bitches are in the slammer for life, what the hell do you care about their aggressivness. If they're locked away for life (justifiably or not!) then I dare say society has already, symbolically castrated them.

"I know!!" you say. "But, I can just taste the blood and I hate to waste this boner, couldn't we just do a couple for sport? Come on, Waddie, we'll let you cut the first one!"

Hummm....what movie about the sixties just before the civil rights movement in the south does that remind me of?

Jesus states his arguments as gospel! (I liked the analogy.....so what?!) >>>>

JesusA (imported) wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2002 12:57 pm Just read the editorials and letters to the editor about the appropriate fate of ?

terrorists.? Making prison life ?unpleasant,?

JesusA (imported) wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2002 12:57 pm if not physically painful, is certainly widely discussed.

<<<<<

While it's true, that our county is reeling in righteous indignatiion and anger at the temerity of these barbaric, religious fanatic, camel jockeys,

JesusA (imported) wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2002 12:57 pm the editorials and letters to the editor

must be taken in the context of the moment. I have a deep abiding faith in our country to realize that "this too shall pass"! The American people love to forgive! (And, I might add, that I am proud of our country's ability to lick it's wounds, turn the other cheek, and in most case offer comfort and succor to the defeated.)

As far as discussion to make prison life unpleasant and physically painful being "widely" discussed? (Note: The key word here is

"widely"! It doesn't leave room for footnotes.) That considered, it just simply isn't true, folks! I challenge Jesus to post his sources! (Perhaps he's discussing it with a fat lady?)

>>>>>

JesusA (imported) wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2002 12:57 pm The American prison population has soared with more and more convicted criminals being sentenced to very long mandatory sentences or even to life without possibility of parole, frequently for multiple (but often nonviolent) offences.

<<<<<<

"And, why is that, Jesus?" I ask rhetorically. Why didn't you present the " 3 strike" law that is the exact reason for the soaring prison population? You didn't go far enough in your expanation to add that the majority of these life sentences are for "third strike offenders of nonviolent, victimless crimes." Up to ninty percent! ( And, I have the resources to back that statement up!)

Skimmed over that, didn't you? Don't present the total picture, lets get to the part that makes me old dick hard! The funny thing is (and

I hate to admit it!) I understand where you're coming from! I find your method of sheep herding so damnably funny that I can't be angry with you! A bit disappointed that your intelligence isn't put to better use but hey, it's your string of pearls!

This line immediately follows the above quoted line:>>>>>

JesusA (imported) wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2002 12:57 pm If the goal is to remove individuals (mostly male) from society until they are less likely to commit VIOLENT and aggressive crime, ought we to think about other ways to reduce aggression

<<<<<<<

I laughed my ass off at the 'apples and oranges' flip-flop from the previous skimming over "but often nonviolent" to the next line that

suggests that they're all VIOLENT, aggressive, men! (Let's make that one big, all caps, so maybe they'll forget the previous line!)

Last, but not least:>>>>>

JesusA (imported) wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2002 12:57 pm California is currently discussing ways to get convicted felons OUT of prison.

<<<<<<

Uhhh! Could we have a little elaboration, there? True story. Man steals a bicycle from a Western Auto store for his little girl for her birthday. He's unemployed, flat broke, no welfare and can't borrow from friends or family. He already had two other minor harges on his record and this was the third. Mandatory sentence? Life in prison, without parole!! You say it isn't so? Well, I beg to differ. Was on 20/20 two weeks ago.

Now, Marshal Eric, should we remove his manhood in private or should we make a public example of such VIOLENT vermin?

(Violent Vermin? Wasn't she a character in one of Tennessee Williams' plays....?)

Maybe we could get a spot on Fox! (another splendid suggestion from Eric.) Hell, they'll buy anything; especially, if we neuter his two sons at the same time, so's they won't be able to propagate his kind! We'll call it, "The Sin's of The Father!". Them boys won't be jumping back into the gene pool any time soon!

Just when I was about to take my double jack to my 'electro-willie-gates' muttering to myself of disbeliefs, the dark Wagnerian clouds parted 'mit storm und drung' and a small glimmer of light came shinning through.........I read Radar's post!

I kept waiting for him to chuck it all for the gratuitous. I was delightfully surprised! I have new hope!

Well done, Lad! (Perhaps an understatment will impress you more of my sincerity than flatulent praise?)

Consider the above as gentle reminder that if you're going to call yourself a "provocateur", perhaps, you shouldn't borrow your clothes from the Emperor? Read Radar's post and take it to heart! His words cloth him with substance. His is a voice of reason.

For reference to my statements above please refer to this Sunday's (01/06/02 ) Los Angeles Times Editorial section to an article by Sasha Abramsky, "A Bad Law With No Reforms in Sight". Recounts the story of Billy Ochoa who was convicted of shop ifting $153 dollars of video tapes. Because of several other minor offense convictions, none involving an individual victim, he was sentenced to 326 years in prison by a judge in Los Angeles.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that amount of time was cruel and unsual punishment. However, little has been done to change the law or consider early release for non-violent prisoners. Alabama recently passed a law allowing nonviolent inmates who had been sentenced to life under that state's habitual-offender statute to be released early through parole hearings. Unfortunately, contrary to Jesus's post, there have been no talks in California toward that end! California Secretary of State Bill Jones continues to defend this stupid law and has a strong, active political base to supprot his position.

Well, let's see......did I step on everyone's toes equally? Is there anyone I missed taking a 'pot shot' at? Did I achieve an equal opportunity rant? Is there anyone out there that I haven't offended? Or, if you're simply miffed that I didn't include you, e-mail me and I'll put you at the top of the list for my next number.

Remember, life's a banquet! Don't come late to the feast!

Master Waddie

Thank you for the insults of my own thoughts MW.

I used to feel safe being able to speak my mind here.

Sigh .......

What is a person to do?

This is a castration website and discussion of the topic of crime in that framework is understandable, expected, and encouraged.

Master Waddie has written an impassioned defense of personal rights and social justice for which he should be proud.

Jesus is a valued contributor to the Archive in many, many ways and is a brilliant and well respected academic with professional publishing credits.

Erik is one of the Archive's more prolific and popular authors.

Every one has, I am sure, the best of intentions in this particularly spirited debate. However I must implore everyone to take a DEEP breath and a step back and realize that debate and discussiom must not be allowed to interfere with the respect, if not friendships, developed here and which are so important to a vital and healthy community.

Eric~

I refuse to play that game, Son! I had hoped you'd learn something about

the seriousness of people that find themselves in that position. I doubt seriously that my post has made you fearful. Perhaps it will cause you to make sure your brain is running before you put your mouth in gear.

If you're unhappy with my post, write a rebuttal! I'd rather read a rant than

your wounded duck routine!

Master Waddie

SplitDick (imported) wrote: Tue Jan 08, 2002 11:26 am As Groot points out, testosterone is very easy to get hold of. I'd say it is as easy as any other street drug, like marjuana. I've got at least four friends I can phone up at any time to get testosterone or other steroid variants.

Therefore, forced or mandatory castration of criminals will not work for those who don't want it, since they can restore their testosteron

e easily..............

........

SplitDick (imported) wrote: Tue Jan 08, 2002 11:26 am only VOLUNTARY castration will work, and only as a cure (not a punishment).

I'm not sure that this sort of scheme is a good idea, here are a couple of points that have not been mentioned ..... yet

One of the things I can easily see happening IF castration was to be offered as suggested is the availability of Testosterone for EVERYONE would be made much more difficult. For those NOT involved in these suggested castration as a solution schemes this could be disasterous..

I will give an example of something that happened here in Australia recently because of Sydney hosting the Olympics. Because the natural version of T is not able to be detected by testing (you can check the level but not trace the source), prescriptions for Testosterone were placed onto what is known as an Authority pescription.... you had to have your doctor obtain permission from the health department before being able to get a pescription. The effect this had on the Female to Male transsexuals was dramatic, a lot of them could no longer obtain pescriptions for Testosterone as the health dept had them listed as female and females should not be taking T.

As I have not been able to get any sort of Eunuch community together here, I have been unable to find out if this change in the pescription requirements had a similar effect on Eunuchs. (I do not take T, I am taking female hormones because I am a post-op Male to Female transsexual, as most of you would already be aware).

The restricting of T was to make it more difficult for the athletes to get it. Imagine how tight the restrictions would likely be if they were trying to keep T away from criminals....

The point I am trying to make here is, if you set up a situation where the availability of Testosterone could be restricted so as to keep it away from people that *should not have it*, you also make it more difficult for those that *should be able* to obtain the drug to get it.



Another thing that springs to mind for me is, if you end up with a situation where it is widely known that offenders are castrated, there will be some people who will then make the connection in the reverse direction..... A castrated person *must* be an offender. You could end up with a situation where the public view of Eunuchs is that of being criminals ( rather worse than the current view of just being weird or sick ).

Why make life more difficult for Eunuchs (and transsexuals)?

Isn't it difficult enough already???

One small comment:

Aside from the whole castration thing, you cannot put people to death for crimes such as rape, theft in any form, assault, etc. Why? Because if the person is going to face the death penalty for rape, why not add murder to the list as well? It's not like the punishment is going to be any worse.

As it stands, the victim is traumatized, but lives. WIth the death penalty, there's absolutely no reason not to kill the victim. The murder rate would go through the roof.

(And anyways, approximately HOW many times more expensive is it to put someone to death than it is to imprison them for life?)

IEunuch.

Franky, you missed my point. The reason I said only VOLUNTARY castration is viable, is because people that get voluntary castration will not want to replace their testosterone. There would be no need to restrict testosterone further.

What will not work is MANDATORY castration, because you would have to make sure they don't replace their testosterone. And it would be pretty much impossible to do so. The testosterone I get from friends is usually Russian in origin, so no amount of goverment restriction on prescription testosterone would help restrict access.

Frankie, you said:

"Sex crimes aren't about sex. They're about power. "

I believe that this is the biggest misunderstanding our society has made about sex crime, and why sex crime seems like such a perplexing problem to solve.

First of all the drive for power IS sex related. Everyone knows how male dogs vie to be head of the pack. The same is true at any night club -- there are fights afterwards by young guys seeking to be dominant. We are not so different from animals. Men in general like to physically dominate others -- it is obvious from our sports (football, boxing, hockey, lacrosse, etc.). And that desire to dominate is testosterone driven.

Secondly, many men have strong sexual urges starting at the age of about 11 (for me it was 9). However, we have no acceptable outlet for those urges until about 10 years later, IF we are lucky enough to find a woman who is open to us sexually. If you happen to be ugly, shy, poor, socially unusual, etc. you may never find a woman who will want to be sexual with you. Masturbation is not really an option, because most kids are taught that it is wrong, or are shamed from doing it. Even if you are not ashamed to masturbate, masturbation is a pale substitute for real sex -- you'll still yearn for a woman. Even if you find a good woman, she probably won't want sex three times a day like you want to. So many (most) men spend at LEAST 10 years of sexual frustration. In that time, they views on sexuality will be warped (by the frustration). That is a recipe for sexual predation. A rapist will certainly be seeking "power", but only to try to compensate for SEXUAL frustration.

Thirdly, I think society wants to think that humans are not as animalistic as they are. It is a mistake for us to ignore the animalistic, physical basis for some of our urges. Humans are not as rational as we want to be. The idea of deterrants is simply not a factor in criminal behavior.

Lastly, feminism has political reasons for saying rape is not about sex/testosterone. There are two reasons they do so. The first is because in the old days the laws against rape were lax because people thought the man couldn't help himself (ie. testosterone was an excuse). Secondly, feminists did not want to admit that men had something they didn't -- testosterone.

In the end, my claim is that sexual predation has a very simple root -- sexual frustration in men due to strong testosterone drives that are not given proper outlet (or rechanneling) during adolescence.

I suggest that anyone with a young son teaches them about healthy sexuality, including releasing frustration through moderate masturbation.

For those who have become sexual predators, I strongly believe that castration can help them IF their testosterone physical drive is still strong. Note that there are other sexual predators whose drive may no longer be strong, but years of warped views on sexuality have seriously compromised their psychology. I don't know if they can be helped.

EDITORIAL NOTE:

This thread was designed to be incendiary, though I'm glad that the oil that Bboy tried to pour on the waters didn't catch fire. The discussion has been quite civil given the topic and the responses have been thoughtful and well presented.

The Archive is primarily centered on the Story Board, with far fewer hits on the Message Boards - which I prefer to read because of the real and very interesting people involved. The Story Board is all fictional. One frequent story theme involves the castration of children. However, whenever there is the slightest whiff of the remote possibility that any child might actually be castrated, this board erupts in indignation and anger. The distinction between fiction and reality is clear.

Another frequent story type involves the castration of prisoners or criminals. This is rare, but not unknown in public debate about criminal justice. My local newspaper (owned by unreconstructed troglodytes) has been running a series of letters - pro and con - on the mandatory castration of rapists. (I haven't even contributed to the extended series; all published letters in which are over female names).

I have long been concerned about excessive punishment for minor offenses. Long time readers of the Archive will recognize my concern with life imprisonment of (too frequently) ethnic minority non-violent offenders or of those who have committed "victimless crimes." I have written on this topic in a number of venues well beyond the Archive. (Master Waddie and I probably agree far more often than either of us would probably care to admit - we couldn't have as much fun arguing. I also reserve the right to say whatever gets the most interesting response!)

This thread was designed to question the topic of so many of the pieces of fiction posted here. Given the response, I'm pleased to be associated with all of you. Even some of the very short and perfunctory pieces I know to be based on more thoughtful analysis. For example, Erik and I have corresponded quite a bit on related topics. I know how much lay behind his two lines. (He's just out of a long hospital stay, and I'm surprised and pleased that he found time to reply at all.)

This is a great group of people, and feel free to go on with the debate. I may even contribute something to keep the torches lit. Just try not to pour boiling oil on anyone.

and have never had sex. I haven't fantasized about raping someone either!