Facts about sexual violence

Rape is perpetrated out of the desire to cause harm. It has nothing to do with sexual urges.

In addition, castration is not at all a solution to rape. The perpetrators can find other means of raping. You don't need a penis to rape nor do you need a vagina to be raped.

Also, you don't need to be sexually-excited to experience an erection or ejaculation. These physiological responses can occur from a variety of non-sexual psychological stimuli.

If anything, castrating a rapist will make him angry and there is a risk that he will retaliate by making more victims.

Castration does not decrease rape or molestation anymore than it decreases murder or other non-sexual forms of violence.

Any attempt to prevent rape via any form of castration ["chemical" or not], assumes rape is related to sexual urges -- which it isn't. Rape is about violence & aggression and has nothing to do with lust.

Let me give you an example. The following scenario is purely-hypothetical and fictional. Sorry if anyone is disturbed.

A boy grows up in an environment where girls are treated favorably over boys. As he gets older, his parents have another kid -- his younger sister. People always treat her better than him -- at least in his perception. She cruelly-exploits this anti-boy sexism and makes her brother's childhood a living hell. This boy develops a very negative impression of the girl-child. He grows up wanting to hurt girls because of what his little sister put him through. He grows up with a lot of indignation.

Due to this anger, when he is an adult [aged 18 or above], he purchases a gun. His indignation against little girls has turned him into a homicidal and suicidal lunatic.

On a random day, this boy [now an adult man] witnesses something that causes him to snap. He is at a grocery store where he sees two kids [a boy and a girl] and their father. The boy is 7 and the girl is 3. The girl keeps hitting her brother until he hits her back. She then whines and her father reacts by spanking the boy and telling him "I don't care what your little sister does, don't ever hurt her".

This event causes the man to re-experience his own traumatic childhood. He empathizes and identifies with the 7-year-old boy. He feels extremely-sorry for that boy -- who he views as a victim of society.

A week goes by. During this week he was planning a suicidal attack on a girl's middle school which he lives near by.

Next, he goes to a densely-populated area of the school with his gun and a horrific incident ensues. He shoots as many girls in the crotch as he can -- each of these girls die from bleeding from their femoral arteries. He then pumps the final bullet into his own head, killing himself.

Because of the bodily-location of where the guy shot the girls, he is [by legal and social definition], guilty of "sexual abuse". As said before, each of his victims die due to massive femoral bleeding.

At no point of this incident did the shooter experience ANY sexual-excitement. Nor did he experience such arousal during the planning.

In fact, in no point in his life did he associate any sexual pleasure with his hatred of girls. Yet he still rapes the girls in that school [with high-velocity lead].

No amount of castration of any type could have prevented this hypothetical tragedy. Even if this man had no element of sexuality in him, he'd probably still perpetrate this unspeakable event.

There are those who still might think the shooter gained some sexual gratification in pumping lead into those girls. You are all so wrong.

In addition, many people would like to call the shooter a "pedophile". However, in the hypothetical scenario I described, I doubt the shooter is -- by psychiatric definition -- a pedophile.

Just what is a 'pedophile'? Let's say there are 2 individuals who are 5 or more years apart in age. The older individual is 16 or above. The younger individual is below 14. The older individual is sexually-interested in the younger individual. In such a case, according to the DSM-IV, the older individual would be a 'pedophile'.

It is important to realize that not all pedophiles are child-molesters and not all child-molesters are pedophiles.

It is VERY unlikely that the shooter had any sexual thoughts about the girls he killed. From a legal standpoint he maybe a "child molester" because he shot persons under 18 "down there". However, his actions are the result of anger, not lust.

Once I again, I hope no one is disturbed by this message as it is all only theoretical.