Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Tiassa, Mar 27, 2013.
you mean there is legislation against masturbation? Where?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Pedantic Centrist Perversity, or, When There Is No Middle Road
Don't bother. Perverse pedantry is how he makes himself feel smarter.
The funny thing is that there is actually a principle called the Law of Charity, which in philosophical discourse obliges one to make every reasonable attempt to construe what the other says in a rational manner. The problem with this arises when one side of an argument has nothing reasonable to offer.
And then along comes someone pretending to play the middle road. Because, I don't know, centrism works? After all, without centrism, we wouldn't have American torture. Without centrism, policies pertaining to sexuality and reproduction wouldn't be such a patchwork inconsiderate of itself. Without centrism, the U.S. probably wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq.
The bottom line, though, is that while your prior post certainly resonates with the sympathetic, it is too loosely written for the special needs of those enlightened souls who want to hide their animus in centrism.
Oh well, I guess I have to tighten up and become more obvious and pedantic too. Thanks for the heads up on that one.
Regarding the effectiveness of centrism, I have to agree with that insofar as it is centrism coupled with a(n) (un) healthy dose of apathy and a liberal serving of complacency.
Again, I shall endeavor to be more cognizant of the special needs population and address myself accordingly to given topics. Thank you.
"Boys Will Be Boys", and Other Notes
Welcome to America.
Montana, in this case. Big Sky Country. The Treasure State. Oro y Plata.
On Friday, the Department of Justice sent a letter to the Missoula County Attorney's Office in Montana, alleging that it has found "substantial evidence" that prosecutors there systematically discriminate against female sexual-assault victims. According to the DOJ, the office considers sexual-assault cases involving adult women a low priority, often treats these victims with disrespect—quoting religious passages to one woman who reported assault, in a way that made her feel judged—and declines to prosecute some cases in which it has confessions or eyewitnesses, including a case in which Missoula police obtained incriminating statements from a man who admitted to having sexual intercourse with a mentally ill woman, who had asked him to stop.
"We uncovered evidence of a disturbing pattern of deficiencies in the handling of these cases by the County Attorney's Office, a pattern that not only denies victims meaningful access to justice, but places the safety of all women in Missoula at risk," wrote Acting Assistant Attorney General Jocelyn Samuels for the Civil Rights Division, in a statement on Friday.
In a statement emailed to Mother Jones on Saturday, Missoula County Attorney Fred Van Valkenburg wrote, "I think that everything the DOJ is saying about our office is false. These people are as unethical as any I have ever seen. They obviously have a political agenda they want to push and the truth does not matter to them." Van Valkenburg also told The Missoulian, "There was no effort whatsoever by the DOJ to in any way inform me before they made this thing public." (A Justice Department spokeswoman told Mother Jones on Saturday that it has reached out to the Missoula County Attorney's Office "more than a half-dozen times over the past 21 months in an attempt to reach an amicable resolution." She added, "We remain confident in the integrity of our findings.")
Yeah, it only gets more depressing from there.
The details alleged are sickening.
• Woman reports a rape? Try reciting Bible passages "in a way that the victim interpreted to mean that the Deputy County Attorney was judging her negatively for have made the report".
• Five year-old girl raped by adolescent boy? "Boys will be boys".
• How to prosecute a rape? Tell her, "All you want is revenge".
And this sort of thing has effects:
The Justice Department reported that some women claimed they declined to pursue prosecution because of negative reports they'd heard about the prosecutor's office. A young woman who was gang-raped as a student at the University of Montana allegedly told the DOJ that her friend decided not to report her own rape to the police or prosecutors after hearing about her experience dealing with the prosecutor's office. In another case, a clinical psychologist who had counseled numerous sexual-assault survivors in Missoula allegedly told the Justice Department that after she, herself, was sexually assaulted, she was reluctant to have her case prosecuted, given the "horrendous" stories she'd heard.
The Justice Department also determined that, after a review of police files, "in some cases ... Missoula Police officers had developed substantial evidence to support prosecution, but [the office] without documented explanation, declined to charge the case." According to the DOJ, in one case, police obtained a confession from a man who admitted to raping a woman while she was unconscious, and recommended that he be charged with rape and car theft. The prosecutor's office allegedly declined to bring charges, citing "insufficient evidence." In another case, a man admitted to having sex with a mentally ill woman, and said that at some point she asked him to stop and said that he was hurting her—but he wasn't sure when he'd stopped. The police also recommended rape charges in that case, and the prosecutor declined to bring charges, according to the Justice Department. The DOJ determined that the prosecutor's office declined to prosecute "nearly every case" involving nonstranger assaults on adult women who had a mental or physical disability, or who were intoxicated by drugs or alcohol.
Um ... yeah. There's really not a whole lot to say, here. I mean, "Okay, so it's not just Colorado", is probably insufficient.
But, yeah. These are your United States of America.
This particular story is only going to get uglier.
Liebelson, Dana. "Montana Prosecutor Allegedly Told Mother of 5-Year-Old Sexual-Assault Victim That 'Boys Will Be Boys'". Mother Jones. February 16, 2014. MotherJones.com. February 16, 2014. http://www.motherjones.com/politics...tana-sexual-assault-justice-department-report
And some wonder why rape victims are reluctant to come forward to report rapes...
A Minnesota nursing home ignored an 89-year-old rape victim's pleas for help, then branded her as a "flirt" who harassed her attacker "mercilessly," court papers charge.
The woman's caretaker, Andrew Scott Merzwski, admitted to raping her in January 2013. He was sentenced last month to 53 months in prison. But a lawsuit against the Edgewood Vista facility in Hermantow accuses a nursing home director of defending the rapist even after he admitted to his crime.
"Did she tell you that this was consensual?" Marilyn Moore, the home's clinical services director, reportedly told a nurse examiner who inspected the victim. "Did she tell you that she flirts with this boy mercilessly?"
The Star Tribune unearthed the shocking court documents, which go on to charge that the victim was locked in a psychiatric ward for almost three days after reporting the crime.
The New York Daily News detailed the attack:
Andrew Scott Merzwski was a caretaker in January 2013 at the home when he assaulted the woman. She told a nurse examiner Merzwski sat down to watch a movie with her, but then took his clothes off. She tried to repel the younger man’s advances by pointing to a picture of her husband.
“It’s not right,” she reportedly said. “This wouldn’t be right."
The woman told her daughter what happened the next day, and the daughter called police.
Merzwski admitted to the assault, yet the victim underwent more embarrassment and bad treatment. Nurse examiner Theresa Flesvig said she was shocked when Moore suggested the sex was "consensual." When she performed a full rape examination on the woman -- days after the attack -- she found the "biggest tear" she'd ever seen.
53 weeks for raping a woman, a woman who was in his care no less... And the director victim shames her and blames her for her own rape.. And then locks her in a psychiatric ward after she reported being raped.. Sadly, such incidents not unusual, women are often blamed for their own rapes. Some are even jailed to make sure they testify against their rapists, because you know, imprisoning a rape victim is always a good idea...
(Insert Title Here)
I'm just going to go ahead and blame this one on Facebook. And there is a reason for that.
There are some jokes that you just don't make in public. Perhaps they are just fine among trusted circles, where people will get your context or simply accept the humorous diversion of gravity. The "Gay-Off" in professional football announcing (who will make the "gayest" double-entendre?), for instance. Or the barrage of bestiality jokes about a friend and a sheep. And, yes, we do have crude jokes about domestic abuse.
But I'm going to blame Facebook for screwing with people's idea of friendship. (After all, blaming that many people for being that stupid, while possibly reasonably accurate, just doesn't work in a society defined by post-pomo popular culture.)
The discussion on the Facebook page of the Greater Nashua Tea Party arose over the New Hampshire GOP's refusal to stand by another state lawmaker, Rep. Mark Warden (R), who has come under scrutiny in recent days for saying, "Some people could make the argument that a lot of people like being in abusive relationships."
Tasker and others on the Facebook page defended Warden, with Tasker commenting, "Warden is so principled it offends people."
After a few other remarks, Tasker then posted a sexually explicit graphic with a joke about "battered women" ....
And while I am generally not shocked by such displays, I have to admit this one is vicious. Be cautious about clicking the HuffPo link, or opening the spoiler.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, really. It's all that, and more.
Huffington Post. "New Hampshire GOP Lawmaker Jokes About 'Battered Women': 'I Still Eat Mine Plain'". March 11, 2014. HuffingtonPost.com. March 11, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/11/kyle-tasker-battered-women_n_4943880.html
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The point beyond redemption..
A Republican state representative in New Mexico introduced a bill Wednesday that classified abortions for rape victims as "tampering with evidence," effectively requiring women to carry their pregnancies to term in order to prove their case in a sexual assault trial.
This bill will not pass, as Democrats control both chambers of New Mexico's state legislature, but there are plenty of other state laws that extend the nightmare for women who are impregnated through rape.
Of the 26 states that require a waiting period (usually 24 hours) for women seeking abortions, only Utah makes an exception for cases of rape or incest. Pregnant rape victims in some states must also undergo counseling about the negative effects of abortion before having the procedure.
If a woman who conceives through rape does go on to have the child, she can open herself up to being victimized by her rapist again and again. In 31 states, paternal rapists are allowed to sue for custody and visitation rights like any other father, as a Chicago woman who was served with custody papers from her rapist brought to the public's attention last summer after former Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) made his "legitimate rape" comments.
Damned if she does, damned if she does not.
Restricted access to abortions and forcing women to wait to abort the pregnancies caused by rape. But if she goes on to have the child, you know, live the conservative right's dream for women, she can find herself being sued for custody and visitation rights by the man who raped and impregnated her.
You see, nine months after my rape, I gave birth to a beautiful little girl. You could say she was conceived in rape; she was. But she is also so much more than her beginnings. I blissfully believed that after I finally had decided to give birth to and to raise my daughter, life would be all roses and endless days at the playground. I was wrong again.
It would not be long before I would learn firsthand that in the vast majority of states -- 31 -- men who father through rape are able to assert the same custody and visitation rights to their children that other fathers enjoy. When no law prohibits a rapist from exercising these rights, a woman may feel forced to bargain away her legal rights to a criminal trial in exchange for the rapist dropping the bid to have access to her child.
Shauna Prewitt's baby was 6 months old when her rapist sued her for visitation and partial custody of the baby. While it is unimaginable that this could even happen, it can and it does and legally so.
Ohio's state legislature is attempting to address this issue.. In response to Ariel Castro asking for visitation rights to the child he fathered with one of the girls he had imprisoned in his home for so many years. That legislation is currently stalled while another is being debated which would require a rape conviction to prevent the rapist from having custody of the child. Considering how the majority of rapes are never reported, it becomes a point of being damned if she aborts and doubly damned if she keeps the baby that resulted from rape.
The Obvious Question
Begging Pardon, But Why Does the Point Still Need Making?
no, we do not have to wear makeup
no, we do not have to smile
and, most importantly,
no, we do NOT have to be touched.
—Jeanne Marie Ryan
Eleanor Goldberg explains for The Huffington Post:
A woman who was viciously attacked in a nightclub in England is baring her battered face for the entire world to see in order to raise funds and awareness for other victims of violence.
Jeanne Marie Ryan, a 29-year-old Oxford University student, said she was beaten up at a nightclub on Saturday after she confronted a man who groped her, BBC News reported. Ryan approached her attacker and told him what he did was "completely inappropriate," according to her Facebook page.
The man then punched her seven times. She suffered a broken nose and lacerated chin, according to BBC.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Jeanne Marie Ryan: "thanks, friends. sometimes you just have to make the best out of a broken nose, right?"
The face of civilized society. Because, you know, how dare a woman not want to be groped, you know? And how dare she speak out like she's some sort of person, or something ... right?
I mean, after all—
no, we do not have to wear makeup
no, we do not have to smile
and, most importantly,
no, we do NOT have to be touched.
—how the hell is it that people still need this explained to them?
Ryan, Jeanne marie. "#nomakeupselfie". Facebook. March 23, 2014. Facebook.com. March 28, 2014. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=692682117424&set=a.536309674054.2047233.10300593&type=1
Goldberg, Eleanor. "Attack Victim Bares Battered Face In #NoMakeupSelfie To Help Rape Victims". The Huffington Post. March 27, 2014. HuffingtonPost.com. March 28, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/27/no-makeup-selfie-rape_n_5044275.html
Shit, I'm 70 and I know this stuff. How old are these other assholes?
This happened in public??? Was the asshole arrested and prosecuted?
Too stupid to live, too young to ... er ... right
Turns out that's a more interesting question than I would have thought. The assailant is allegedly all of eighteen.
According to the BBC, Thames Valley Police have arrested a suspect, who apparently is "due at a police station on 1 April".
British Broadcasting Corporatioon. "Jeanne Marie Ryan: Man arrested over 'selfie' club attack". BBC News. March 27, 2014. BBC.co.uk/news. March 30, 2014 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-26769176
A Delaware man convicted of raping his three-year-old daughter only faced probation after a state Superior Court judge ruled he "will not fare well" in prison.
In her decision, Judge Jan Jurden suggested Robert H. Richards IV would benefit more from treatment. Richards, who was charged with fourth-degree rape in 2009, is an unemployed heir living off his trust fund. The light sentence has only became public as the result of a subsequent lawsuit filed by his ex-wife, which charges that he penetrated his daughter with his fingers while masturbating, and subsequently assaulted his son as well.
Richards is the great grandson of du Pont family patriarch Irenee du Pont, a chemical baron.
According to the lawsuit filed by Richards' ex-wife, he admitted to assaulting his infant son in addition to his daughter between 2005 and 2007. Richards was initially indicted on two counts of second-degree child rape, felonies that translate to a 10-year mandatory jail sentence per count. He was released on $60,000 bail while awaiting his charges.
Richards hired one of the state's top law firms and was offered a plea deal of one count of fourth-degree rape charges -- which carries no mandatory minimum prison sentencing. He accepted, and admitted to the assault.
In her sentence, Jurden said he would benefit from participating in a sex offenders rehabilitation program rather than serving prison time.
Delaware Public Defender Brendan J. O'Neill told The News Journal that it was "extremely rare" for an individual to fare well in prison. "Prison is to punish, to segregate the offender from society, and the notion that prison serves people well hasn't proven to be true in most circumstances," he said, adding that the light sentence for the member of the one percent raised questions about “how a person with great wealth may be treated by the system.” (Though perhaps it provides more answers than questions.)
According to the The News Journal, several attorneys claimed treatment over jail time was a deal more typically granted to drug addicts, not sex offenders.
So, he admits to raping is daughter and sexually molesting his son and was convicted as such, but is given probation because he would not fare well in prison? So much so that the Judge held that a prison sentence would adversely affect Richards. Because heaven forbid a child rapist and molester feel adversely affected by the punishment of raping and molesting his own infants.
Those in the legal circles are considering whether this was because he was a rich white man, and a child sex offender who could be a target in prison. But prison systems do have protective custody in place, so that he would be kept away from the general prison population. Instead of focusing on his colour and his wealth, perhaps the legal system should consider the crime he committed against his own children.
Hint: It's Not About Justice
This is a persistent dispute in the U.S. To the one, it's prison; is it really supposed to be good for a person? To the other, we keep calling the prison industry by the monikers of correctional and rehabilitative endeavors; there is nothing true in those adjectives. For decades we have treated prisons as a private industry subject to growth demands; that's the whole purpose of a drug war targeting dark skin—it's part of the Republican Southern Strategy. The result is overcrowding as a result of budgetary and profit considerations, with an outcome that prisoners are neither corrected nor rehabilitated. In the American Drug War, we had a saying: Send a pothead to prison in order to turn him into a hardened criminal. And that's about what our prisons are good for; you can send a medicinal marijuana Quaker to prison, and he will emerge ready to cut the first sonofabitch that looks at him wrong.
So there is, to the one, the proposition that prison would adversely affect anyone. But as we've seen in recent times, affluenza is increasingly influenca. As much as we Americans loathed the Communist talk of decadence, it is hard to see how they were wrong.
But democracy and free society aren't really about justice or fairness, or anything like that. Like any business deal that seems to good to be true: If they weren't profiting compared to the alternative, we wouldn't be doing this.
In the U.S., that qualifies as adulthood. At 17 he would more likely be tried in juvenile court and, if convicted, incarcerated in an institution for minors. I have no idea where the breakpoint is in British law.
BTW, the juvenile detention system is almost exactly as effective as the adult version. Send a fellow to a place where he's surrounded by tough criminals, and he'll come out as a tough criminal.
Not clear how that would have worked out in the U.S. If they let you go home and come back at an appointed time, it's usually because they plan on charging you with a misdemeanor rather than a felony.
Wouldn't most people benefit more from treatment than prison time? Prison is about the worst thing that can happen to a person without doing physical harm to him or his family. Contrary to its euphemisms, it almost never actually performs correction or rehabilitation. It's just a place to put people that you don't want out in the community doing more bad shit, yet, even in the trigger-happy United States, they don't quite qualify for execution.
Our legal system is quite schizophrenic about sexual abuse of children. Some accused people are railroaded into convictions based on evidence that would never be accepted for any other charge. Yet others are just slapped on the wrist despite incontrovertible evidence.
I'm sure the press will go after this aspect of the case like a hyena going after a wounded piglet. The government, the churches, the corporations, the banks and the Moose Lodge may overlook a "lapse in judgment" if you're wealthy enough to do them a big favor. But the reporters won't. They busted President Nixon. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Nothing remarkable about that. Plea bargaining happens every day. If the state isn't sure it can get a jury to convict based on the evidence they have, they'll happily settle for convicting any defendant on a lesser charge. At least it goes on his record and so will have an impact on his life. Well shit, that makes the whole system sound like nothing more than a glorified tool for extracting revenge, the most primitive, uncivilized and destructive of all human instincts!
Rape is a hot button in the USA. I don't even know what "fourth-degree" rape is, but if it's on your record, you'll have a very hard time getting a job, your wife will be scorned for not leaving you, twice a year some agency will petition the court to take your children to a safer home, and your neighbors will put a SEX OFFENDER sign on your lawn.
As I said above, almost anything that is not medieval in nature will probably be of more benefit than prison time, which has a very good chance of simply making him worse.
Well duh. A government employee who understands how government works.
So I guess he doesn't need a job if he can actually live off of his trust fund. Nonetheless, the way "a person with great wealth is treated by the system" is surely the least surprising aspect of this case.
Because treatment has a reasonable success record for drug addicts. The "treatments" that have been developed for sex offenders are not as successful. Since rape is, 99 times out of 100, a crime of violence rather than a crime of sex, even castration has an amazingly poor record of rehabilitating rapists. They just do it with a broom handle. The only reason they use their penis in the first place is that it is the one weapon that they can take with them everywhere, even if they're searched.
I smell money in action. Children don't vote or contribute to political campaigns.
If not, we're left with the rather large question, "Then what the hell IS it for?" Given that most ex-prisoners end up committing more crimes (even the truly remorseful ones quickly discover that there aren't many jobs open to them--especially if their crime had anything to do with children), incarceration certainly doesn't do anything for society. Sure it keeps the guys off the street for a while, but during that time they're being tutored by the experts.
They could be. It's all in the details.
It's been pointed out that American politics is much more money-driven today than it was in, say, the 1950s.
Humanity is undergoing its seventh Paradigm Shift: agriculture, civilization, bronze metallurgy, iron metallurgy, industry, electronics, and now information technology. Each paradigm-shifting technology fundamentally changes the way everything works--in totally unpredictable ways.
Who would have expected the Bronze Age to be the catalyst for the invention of the wheel (flint blades aren't precise enough to make a large one) or writing (metal made the economy so much larger and more complicated that transactions simply had to be recorded)? Who would have expected the first commercial telegraph to kick off a revolution that would end up turning entertainment into one of the world's richest and most important industries?
So who knows what the Information Revolution will do to the law and lawbreakers?
The main problem with our justice system is an irrational but strategic association between time and the crime. If a rapists was caught in the act, and the protector of the victim went postal on the assailant, this would be accepted as defending the little girl. This is real time justice. But in a trial, the wheels of justice will alter time perception by moving slowly. The original memory of the abuse changes for the audience, as time drags, by lawyers, and TV, until the new memory is not the same as the event. This causes justice to change.
As another example, say an ax murderer was in your house, and was about to kill you and your family. Coincidentally, a police officer is nearby and sees this about to happen in an open window. He fires and kills the ax murderer. This real time death penalty would be called heroic. Time is tight so justice is seen.
If we change this, so the assailant completes all the kills, and the police come in hours later and arrest him, the criminal now has to be treated like a VIP, with special places he is kept. The legal system will stretch out his trial, for years, until the original memory fades or is distorted for most people, while the new memories are built and reinforced by the defense team. Now the death penalty is cruel and he has rights. There is disconnect due to time manipulation.
The victims and their families are stuck in time, forever looking for the rescue. But they get a sanitized rescue that favors the criminal. The democratic party shifted justice to this state where criminals have rights. It just so happens defense lawyers nearly all give to democratic candidates. Is this conflict of interest of just good business sense?
As a side note, did ever notice that defense lawyers do not have to swear to tell the truth in court?
This is why I think they need to streamline things a bit - 3 or more credible, impartial eye witness accounts, and you can skip the entire shebang and go straight to jail (or the electric chair if such a sentence is warranted). Obviously it would need to be slightly more complicated than that, but this dilly-dally shilly-shally system we have now just isn't cutting it.
It isn't that the death penalty is cruel; the point is that it is uncivilized.
To paraphrase your point, if you come home and find an intruder attempting to harm your wife, and due to his superior size and strength (or other factors such as armament) the only way you can get him to stop is to stab him to death with a butcher knife that happens to be nearby, then you are justified in using lethal force in defense of self or others. The moment a person decides to kill another human being for any reason except self-defense, he has voluntarily seceded from civilization, and our rules no longer apply to him.
But if you and your wife manage to overpower him, tie him to a chair, call the police, wait for them to arrive, spend a hundred hours talking to police, attorneys, and finally a jury, while the assailant remains in custody and can no longer harm anyone, and the shit-for-brains government kills him anyway, this is not justice, this is revenge, the most primitive, evil and pernicious of all our Stone Age emotions. They're not punishing the criminal, because he's now dead and feels no shame or remorse. Instead, they're punishing his spouse, children, parents, friends, teachers, preachers, coaches... everyone who's ever loved him and/or tried to teach him to be a good boy.
These people don't deserve this treatment. They've done nothing wrong and in fact have probably put a lot of effort into reforming him. His children, in particular, will grow up with only one memory of this entire event: You're the bastard who got their daddy killed. This is how the Middle East works: People are still killing each other over things that happened so long ago that they can't even describe them coherently. We really don't need to turn America back into a land where the Hatfields and the McCoys are still killing each other.
Put the bastard in prison. Let his children come visit him there, where they'll see for themselves why it's not a good idea to go around killing people.
Spoken like a true Bible-thumping, Dixie-dwelling Republican. Democrats shifted justice to a state where people accused of crimes have rights. Not all of them are guilty--which may come as a surprise to you, who may well live in a place where lynching is still practiced--or at least wish it were.
DNA evidence has been springing people off of Death Row since it came into use. Even people who are convicted are sometimes innocent. Do you want to kill these people too?
They already swore an oath in order to be allowed to practice law.
They are forbidden by law to do anything that jeopardizes their client's case. In many cases defendants confess to their lawyers, and it would be illegal for the lawyer to reveal that information in court.
Apparently you haven't been reading your memos. Eyewitness accounts have been found to be about as reliable as astrology. You could get 12 people to agree on what happened and they could still all be wrong. Even police, who are selected for certain cognitive skills and subsequently trained to use them, don't always get it right.
"'Tis better to let 100 guilty men go free than to execute one innocent man." Didn't they teach you that in school?
Or would you be willing to put your money where your mouth is and be that one wrongly executed innocent man? How 'bout if it were your wife, father, best buddy or one of your kids?
Prison is expensive and has lots of flaws, but so far it's the best system we've got.
In Mexico, there's no capital punishment and the maximum sentence is 20 years. The rationale is that 20 years in a Mexican prison is worse than death. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This topic is beyond me at this point in life, I read a story where a girl posted how she was hurt by a rape and it was much more than sex, it was violent. I don't however believe rape is always done merely to give the perpetrator a sense of power over someone, that's psychobabble IMO. I think men rape women they find sexy most of the time and can't screw any other way. If they weren't horny there would be no rape period. Anyone that says its about control has never had an erection, it's maybe about control and sex but SEX is always the main factor IMO
Should be easy, right?
You now, if the subject matter wasn't so grim, this might be funny.
Show us the psychobabble.
Just sounds like you're making excuses.
You're the guy who talks about "finding a female" as if you're a Klingon anthropologist just visiting our planet. I don't think you can count on anybody ever taking you seriously--especially regarding relations between men and women.
As I pointed out earlier, in most cases rape is a crime of violence, not primarily (if at all) about sexual gratification. Men who have been castrated still go out and assault women sexually, using a stick or any other object that works. The reason they prefer to use their penis is that they can take it anywhere they go without appearing suspicious.
Separate names with a comma.