Castration would end the problem of rape, says King Zwelithini

[John Tempus]

This is not aimed at stopping ALL rape. That's ridiculous. This will just stop most of it. It will definitely stop most serial rapist.

The problem with the logic of the King is no different to the Death penalty outcry.

Absolutes do not fix anything. As much as I want the death penalty back in SA for brutal crimes a part of me have to admit that I have no solid evidence that it would do anything other than possibly end the life of some innocent accused even if its 1 out of 1000.

Castration is the same thing on a different playing field. Can you imagine with all these #me2 bs false allegations where innocent people get caught in lies and eventually a percentage of them without enough money to defend themself have to plea guilty for a crime they did not commit and then get castrated ?

I would love to see how someone falsely accused and sentenced and then castrated can get their balls back years later when found innocent.

Absolute measures do not fix anything.

 

[Mila]

So will there be something similar for the false accusations?




You're going to need to elaborate.

Rape is about force and dominance . Many rape victims are raped with other objects.
Chopping of a penis is not going to stop the likes of these types.
They will find other ways to dominate.
And woman?
Chop of tongues and hands?

Its not as simple as chopping of a penis.

 

[konfab]

You do know that there is like actual research (just one of which I linked to) on this subject? Not thumbsuck dumbarse opinions.

The authors ranked accounts from 133 offenders and 92 victims for the dominant issue and found that the offenses could be categorized as power rape .

Really? That is pretty pathetic from a statistical point of view.

I used evolutionary biology and logic to justify it. Lets break it down:
Premise (as quoted from your source):
There were no rapes in which sex was the dominant issue; sexuality was always in the service of other, nonsexual needs.
There are a number of problems with this.

Why do rapists target woman instead of other men? The premise states that a man would want to rape another man because of a desire for power. The statistical evidence that this is not the case is overwhelming as the majority of rape is committed by men against woman ( I don't think I need to post evidence to back this fact up). Therefore the premise fails on this ground.

Why do rapists target younger woman instead of older woman? The premise states that a man rapes because of power, not because of sexuality. Therefore according to the premise, any woman of any is an acceptable target because the rapist will fulfil their lust for power (totally nonsexual that is). The evidence contradicts this very strongly.

• 15% ages 12-17
• 54% ages 18-34
• 28% ages 35-64
• 3% ages 65+3

https://rapecrisis.com/statistics/

What the evidence shows is that rapists target woman who are younger which is a biological signal for higher fertility (again, I don't think I need to give you evidence that younger people are more fertile). Thus the premise fails here as well.

Why are rapists predominantly younger to middle aged? If rape was just about power, then you would see a uniform distribution of age of rapists. Again this is not the case with most of the rapists being middle aged.


Then to look at the "study" you posted, this is from an article that rebukes the claim

Even if the truthfulness of rapists' statements could be assumed, there is still the problem of interpretation. Symons (1979, pp. 282-283) cites several questionable interpretations present in the literature at that time (also see the Queen's Bench Foundation, 1978). This problem became particularly crucial with the subsequent publication of Groth's influential book Men Who Rape. Not only did Groth's interpretations go against other findings such as those by Smithyman (1978, p. iv) in which 84% of the rapists cited sexual motivation "solely or in part" as the cause of their acts (see also Ageton, 1983; Geis, 1977; Katz & Mazur, 1979; Rada, 1978a; Russell, 1975; Sussman & Bordwell, 1981), but even the examples Groth selected to support his argument make his interpretations questionable. One rapist explains his behavior by saying, "She stood there in her nightgown, and you could see right through it—you could see her nipples and breasts and, you know they were just waiting for me, and it was just too much of a temptation to pass up" (Groth, 1979a, p. 38). Another rapist reported that "I just wanted to have sex with her and that was all" (Groth, 1979a, p. 42; see also Groth, 1979a, pp. 50, 55, 93, 159, 161, 181, and 183).
Groth's reasons for not considering such statements as evidence for sexual motivation being primary in rape are interesting in light of some of the previously discredited arguments:

Although the power rapist [by far the most common type in Groth's classification] may report that his offense was prompted by a desire for sexual gratification, careful examination of his behavior typically reveals that efforts to negotiate the sexual encounter or to determine the woman's receptiveness to a sexual approach are noticeably absent, as are any attempts at lovemaking or foreplay. (Groth, 1979a, p. 28)

This is a quote from the article you claim that proves that rape has nothing to do with sexual arousal. The author follows:

Here again we see an attempt to re-define "sex." This time it must in- clude concern for the other person's arousal to "really" be sexual. Even if this was true, some of Groth's own examples show evidence of negotiation and foreplay (Groth, 1979a, p. 29).

The article I have quoted from is called:
Twelve Reasons Why Rape is Not Sexually Motivated: A Skeptical Examination
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00224498809551479
You can get a pdf version of this via Scihub if it interests you.

 

[Zoomzoom]

The authors ranked accounts from 133 offenders and 92 victims for the dominant issue and found that the offenses could be categorized as power rape .

Really? That is pretty pathetic from a statistical point of view.

I used evolutionary biology and logic to justify it. Lets break it down:
Premise (as quoted from your source):
There were no rapes in which sex was the dominant issue; sexuality was always in the service of other, nonsexual needs.
There are a number of problems with this.

Why do rapists target woman instead of other men? The premise states that a man would want to rape another man because of a desire for power. The statistical evidence that this is not the case is overwhelming as the majority of rape is committed by men against woman ( I don't think I need to post evidence to back this fact up). Therefore the premise fails on this ground.

Why do rapists target younger woman instead of older woman? The premise states that a man rapes because of power, not because of sexuality. Therefore according to the premise, any woman of any is an acceptable target because the rapist will fulfil their lust for power (totally nonsexual that is). The evidence contradicts this very strongly.

https://rapecrisis.com/statistics/

What the evidence shows is that rapists target woman who are younger which is a biological signal for higher fertility (again, I don't think I need to give you evidence that younger people are more fertile). Thus the premise fails here as well.

Why are rapists predominantly younger to middle aged? If rape was just about power, then you would see a uniform distribution of age of rapists. Again this is not the case with most of the rapists being middle aged.


Then to look at the "study" you posted, this is from an article that rebukes the claim


This is a quote from the article you claim that proves that rape has nothing to do with sexual arousal. The author follows:



The article I have quoted from is called:
Twelve Reasons Why Rape is Not Sexually Motivated: A Skeptical Examination
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00224498809551479
You can get a pdf version of this via Scihub if it interests you.

The linked article is NOT I repeat NOT the ONLY research into this subject.

 

[thestaggy]

Until the rapist commits another act of violence against a woman using an object, because a sexual urge isn't always what drives rape. Rape is often part of a greater act, that of exerting power and control and inflicting pain/suffering. Same way rape is used as a ''weapon'' in prison or as a part of war and conquest.

“We incorrectly link sex with rape. The core violence is not around sex but violence, power and control.

“Chemical castration will only make them impotent. The perpetrators of this violence will find other ways to inflict harm.

Chemical castration of rapists is no solution - experts | The Citizen

'We incorrectly link sex with rape. The core violence is not around sex but violence, power and control,' Women’s Legal Centre advocate Bronwyn Pithey says.

citizen.co.za

 

[hungrymamba]

I support this. But the methods used to prove guilt must be water tight. DNA etc...

 

[konfab]

Until the rapist commits another act of violence against a woman using an object, because a sexual urge isn't always what drives rape. Rape is often part of a greater act, that of exerting power and control and inflicting pain/suffering. Same way rape is used as a ''weapon'' in prison or as a part of war and conquest.

You are wrong on all three counts, the article I posted addressed all the points you listed.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00224498809551479

 

[konfab]

The linked article is NOT I repeat NOT the ONLY research into this subject.

Of course, most of the other research on this is written by social constructivists who disregard the entire field of evolutionary biology..

Do yourself a favour and read that article I posted on the repudiation of the rape=power narrative. It is very well researched.

 

[Nanfeishen]

How about the cheapest most effective way - a bullet to the back of the head.
no medical cost, no jail costs , no need for extra beds in jails, no chance of parole, no chance of reccurence.
Bill the family for the bullet.
Simple and cost effective.

 

[Aghori]

How about the cheapest most effective way - a bullet to the back of the head.
no medical cost, no jail costs , no need for extra beds in jails, no chance of parole, no chance of reccurence.
Bill the family for the bullet.
Simple and cost effective.

If there is a watertight case and the rapist admits it, then yes. It's easy for somebody to scream rape and then the poor innocent guy gets killed, only for them to find out later he wasn't guilty.

 

[Zoomzoom]

You are wrong on all three counts, the article I posted addressed all the points you listed.


View attachment 717465

View attachment 717471

View attachment 717467

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00224498809551479

So this would be an example of being intelligent but incredibly dumb. So the argument goes that there is **** all motivation beyond some primordial seed spreading urge? Well .. a. that is just a great ****ing excuse for men isn't it? It is the WORST 'oh I can't help myself' BS ever. Not surprisingly it is a man who wrote it. b. it assumes that the power/rage/violence component is devoid of all sexual arousal - well DUH the arsehole man is aroused. He gets off on the violence. Otherwise how would he get it up long enough to do it at all? But it is still not primarily and solely a SEXUAL act. Whether the rapist is sadistic or psychopathic in his arousal it makes little difference but he is one sick puppy who is angry, frustrated, or just sick in the head.

I for one, will NOT give the sick f-ckers the excuse of 'biology' as a way out of the rest of the pathology.

 

[konfab]

So this would be an example of being intelligent but incredibly dumb. So the argument goes that there is **** all motivation beyond some primordial seed spreading urge? Well .. a. that is just a great ****ing excuse for men isn't it? It is the WORST 'oh I can't help myself' BS ever. Not surprisingly it is a man who wrote it.

That is sexist, and an ad-hominem attack This is a paper written by someone citing evidence. Oh right, the only people who are allowed to look at evidence surrounding why people commit the crime of rape are feminist professors with no education in biology or statistics. AM I RITE?

I for one, will NOT give the sick f-ckers the excuse of 'biology' as a way out of the rest of the pathology.

You are making a dumb strawman attack consisting of the premise that because something is "natural" it must be good. This is called the naturalistic fallacy.

The whole notion that rape has nothing to do with sexual urges is the "intelligent but incredibly dumb" thing we are talking about. The paper you cited as evidence said the following in their abstract:

There were no rapes in which sex was the dominant issue; sexuality was always in the service of other, nonsexual needs.

Yet in their damn paper, they came up with a highly convoluted explanation for the following statement by a rapist:

She stood there in her nightgown, and you could see right through it—you could see her nipples and breasts and, you know they were just waiting for me, and it was just too much of a temptation to pass up

Although the power rapist [by far the most common type in Groth's classification] may report that his offense was prompted by a desire for sexual gratification, careful examination of his behavior typically reveals that efforts to negotiate the sexual encounter or to determine the woman's receptiveness to a sexual approach are noticeably absent, as are any attempts at lovemaking or foreplay.

Thus, this "intellectual" doesn't see a rapist who said he did it for sexual gratification as wanting sexual gratification because there were no attempts at determining whether said rapist wanted to engage in foreplay.


The real interesting thing, which you cannot explain using a degree in feminist belly-button lint picking theory, is that human society has evolved to deal with these biological realities. In the Christian faith, they were named as the 7 deadly sins, and they were named that for a reason because they are highly difficult for people to control, and the reason why they are like that is because that is how we evolved.

You want to convince me otherwise? Post a better theory than one explained by evolutionary biology.

 

[rietrot]

So this would be an example of being intelligent but incredibly dumb. So the argument goes that there is **** all motivation beyond some primordial seed spreading urge? Well .. a. that is just a great ****ing excuse for men isn't it? It is the WORST 'oh I can't help myself' BS ever.

No it's not. We don't act on our primordial urges. Doesn't mean all people don't have them. Delayed gratification is a thing.

 

[falcon786]

So this would be an example of being intelligent but incredibly dumb. So the argument goes that there is **** all motivation beyond some primordial seed spreading urge? Well .. a. that is just a great ****ing excuse for men isn't it? It is the WORST 'oh I can't help myself' BS ever. Not surprisingly it is a man who wrote it. b. it assumes that the power/rage/violence component is devoid of all sexual arousal - well DUH the arsehole man is aroused. He gets off on the violence. Otherwise how would he get it up long enough to do it at all? But it is still not primarily and solely a SEXUAL act. Whether the rapist is sadistic or psychopathic in his arousal it makes little difference but he is one sick puppy who is angry, frustrated, or just sick in the head.

I for one, will NOT give the sick f-ckers the excuse of 'biology' as a way out of the rest of the pathology.

I'm not being insulting but are you male?Have you been castrated in that case?Any normal man can tell you that we all have sexual urges and would love to bed as many woman as we can,that part is a fact for the vast majority of men.Anybody who says otherwise is lying to you or themselves,but the next paragraph is the kicker:

The fact that the vast vast majority of men don't do this because of social etiquette,religious etiquette,legal reasons,not wanting to hurt other people in the process etc..... and mainly because well we're not just animals,controlling those urges is what makes you human after all.

I'll ask again,are you a man?Because if you are then the fact that you can't understand something as simple and primal as this is downright shocking.Fighting and controlling ones inner urges is as old as mankind itself!

Yes there might be one or 2 sickos out there who do it purely for power,but for the vast majority of cases it's simply a case of a man not keeping his urges under control and resorting to primal instincts.

 

[falcon786]

In cases where it's very very obvious and clear that it was rape ...or even better for repeat rape offenders only, castration would actually curb those urges.

 

[rambo919]

If he rapes 50 woman over the course of a decade..... he can't be falsely concluded to be guilty.... whoever he is.

 

[thestaggy]

You are wrong on all three counts, the article I posted addressed all the points you listed.


View attachment 717465

View attachment 717471

View attachment 717467

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00224498809551479

I suggest you re-read my comment and not pick pieces of it.

Until the rapist commits another act of violence against a woman using an object, because a sexual urge isn't always what drives rape. Rape is often part of a greater act, that of exerting power and control and inflicting pain/suffering. Same way rape is used as a ''weapon'' in prison or as a part of war and conquest.

Chemical castration of rapists is no solution - experts | The Citizen

'We incorrectly link sex with rape. The core violence is not around sex but violence, power and control,' Women’s Legal Centre advocate Bronwyn Pithey says.

citizen.co.za

At no point did I say sexual urge isn't a motivating factor. I simply said it isn't the only factor.

As for rape not being a weapon, a means of retribution;

"When we occupied every town, we had first three days for looting and ... [rapes]. That was unofficial of course. But after three days one could be court-martialed for doing this. ... I remember one raped German woman laying naked, with hand grenade between her legs. Now I feel shame, but I did not feel shame back then... Do you think it was easy to forgive [the Germans]? We hated to see their clean undamaged white houses. With roses. I wanted them to suffer. I wanted to see their tears. ... Decades had to pass until I started feeling pity for them."

This was said by a woman telephone operator for the Red Army. Source: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4025275-war-s-unwomanly-face

 

[Zoomzoom]

I'm not being insulting but are you male?Have you been castrated in that case?Any normal man can tell you that we all have sexual urges and would love to bed as many woman as we can,that part is a fact for the vast majority of men.Anybody who says otherwise is lying to you or themselves,but the next paragraph is the kicker:

The fact that the vast vast majority of men don't do this because of social etiquette,religious etiquette,legal reasons,not wanting to hurt other people in the process etc..... and mainly because well we're not just animals,controlling those urges is what makes you human after all.

I'll ask again,are you a man?Because if you are then the fact that you can't understand something as simple and primal as this is downright shocking.Fighting and controlling ones inner urges is as old as mankind itself!

Yes there might be one or 2 sickos out there who do it purely for power,but for the vast majority of cases it's simply a case of a man not keeping his urges under control and resorting to primal instincts.

No I'm not a man! Thank god because apparently not only are all you at the absolute mercy of your penis but that portion of your anatomy apparently also controls your cognitive abilities as well.

Muslim's might not be right about women, but they sure are apparently right about men. Pity that rape is prevalent in Islamic countries as well because clearly not even covering up from head to toe is enough to protect women from the uncontrollable lustful urges of men.

(Hint to the idiot who thinks rape is a biological imperative and directed at young, attractive women - it isn't!)

 

[rietrot]

No I'm not a man! Thank god because apparently not only are all you at the absolute mercy of your penis but that portion of your anatomy apparently also controls your cognitive abilities as well.

Muslim's might not be right about women, but they sure are apparently right about men. Pity that rape is prevalent in Islamic countries as well because clearly not even covering up from head to toe is enough to protect women from the uncontrollable lustful urges of men.

(Hint to the idiot who thinks rape is a biological imperative and directed at young, attractive women - it isn't!)

Who said that? I think you might have gone too long without a man.

 

[Zoomzoom]

Who said that? I think you might have gone too long without a man.

I think I'm just going to with being amused by this thread. Y'all do know that every time you scream about rape being the product of men giving in to urges and is therefore sexual and fixable by castration you are actually telling us that #allmenaretrash is in fact true. You can't have it both ways. Either rape is a product of some pathology that is not primarily sexual in which case you can retain your moral outrage at being lumped in with rapists, or you can hammer home a POV that rapists are just men who gave in to their biologically mandated urges which can be 'cured' by castration in which case - #allmenaretrash comes back into play.

So which is it sunshines? All men are just rapists who haven't had a chance yet, or some men have something wrong with them that make them act out their anger/rage/whatever is wrong through sexual abuse of women and children?