MAP Forum

https://apnews.com/article/louisiana-ca ... 74df032a63
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/sur ... -112496460

Louisiana's new surgical castration law took effect on August 1st. It will allow judges to order the surgical castration of people who engage in AMSC with young people under the age of 13.

Really pushing The Push here.

Other lovely laws to take effect in that state include a prohibition on teachers discussing sexual orientation and gender identity with students.

If you want to live in Louisiana, you'd better be a straight white man!

I think being a straight, white, cisgender woman would likely be better. At least when it comes to sex laws.

Once someone is actually sentenced to surgical castration under the new law we'll see how it stands constitutionally. A lot of talk suggests that based on a 1972 Supreme Court ruling that it's unconstitutional as a "cruel and unusual punishment" (Furman v. Georgia). Theoretically the law should be struck down. But we're living in an era where "unpleasant sex" is seen as rape and equivalent to or worse than murder. If rape is worse than murder, then a punishment arguably more severe than the death penalty isn't actually strange.

I don't think rape is worse than murder. I think we're becoming weirder and weirder about sex and too many things are being considered rape. I support more discussion in society of affirmative consent. There's a lot of bad sex that could be made better with more respect for each partner's boundaries. But I really oppose taking such a punitive approach to it and making bad sex into a crime. Boundary crossing is bad, but it shouldn't automatically be considered rape, or even illegal.

But this law is, at least, limited to children under 13. Though it is not limited to cases of violence or coercion. That's bad. I don't even know exactly how to feel about castration in the case of violent rape against pre-pubescent minors. In some ways I don't feel any sympathy for people that deliberately hurt children. Yet, as a precedent I think it's pretty dangerous. We're reverting to barbaric primitive punishment when we decide to take surgical measures against offenders. How is this any different to cutting off the hands of thieves?

I was just wondering, this assumes that offenders are male, but how do they castrate females who offend?

Fragment wrote: Sun Aug 04, 2024 8:44 am I was just wondering, this assumes that offenders are male, but how do they castrate females who offend?

In that case it would Oophorectomy or surgical remove of the ovaries.

Fragment wrote: Sat Aug 03, 2024 9:23 am But this law is, at least, limited to children under 13. Though it is not limited to cases of violence or coercion. That's bad. I don't even know exactly how to feel about castration in the case of violent rape against pre-pubescent minors. In some ways I don't feel any sympathy for people that deliberately hurt children. Yet, as a precedent I think it's pretty dangerous. We're reverting to barbaric primitive punishment when we decide to take surgical measures against offenders. How is this any different to cutting off the hands of thieves?

The issue I have with laws like this and the death penalty is that there is a chance of error and an innocent person is harmed. For example if I am sentenced to prison for a crime I didn't commit do some time and then the legal system finds out I didn't commit the crime I can be exonerated. That doesn't make up for the time I am in prison but a wrong can be corrected and I can be a free man again. The same can't be said if I was executed for a crime then it was found out that I didn't commit it. They can't press the "Return to life" button and I come back like nothing happened. Same with castration that can't be reserved if it was found the person charged was innocent.

Even if there was a way to never have any innocent people harmed I would oppose them.