Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users

Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Women and men must be held to the same standards.
Yes, women and men are equal, and ought to be raped equally. 67%
Yes, except when it's inconvenient for women. 5%
No, women ought to be subservient to men. 10%
No, women ought to be held to a higher standard. 0%
No, women are incapable of crime because they have suffered such oppression. 8%
No, women are incapable of crime because they're softheaded and weak. 8%

Votes: 37

 Expanding equality under the law

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Nov 06, 2001
The penal system has to include elements both of rehabilitation and deterrence. Rehabilitation is emphasized heavily in the popular press, because for true deterrence to take place, inmates must be traumatized so as to be brought into empathy with the victim. If the criminal cannot be made to feel the pain of the victim, then he cannot really be brought to repentance, and the victim's suffering is denigrated. What we too often forget is that deterrence is a greater kindness to the one deterred than it is even to the people who otherwise would have become his or her victims. Deterrence saves its lucky, anonymous beneficiaries from the suffering that comes with criminality - incarceration, yes, but worse, the awful condition of being deserving cast out from society.

The time has come for prison rape - our grimmest deterrent - to be applied to women as well as to men.


More stories about Justice
Seeking a Sensible Tomorrow: The Media Marketing Accountability Act
The Law Fought The Law And Nobody Won
Goths and Vampirism - A final solution?
Marion 'Suge' Knight to be released - Young white rap fans in danger ?
Dungeons and Dragons: Don't Let it Happen to Your Kid
An Essay on Microsoft
Why the Bombings Mean That We Must Support My Politics
Arriving in Ethiopia, West of Somalia
Newsflash! America's holy war begins!
Twelve Steps Towards Eradicating Terrorism
Please Don't Kill Osama Bin Laden
New Crimes, New Punishments, A New America
Torture - it's inevitable, so lets do it right !
Repeal the Drunk Driving Laws Now
Any punishments penal authorities might inflict upon a criminal are weakened by being applied to a victim by the infinitely more powerful state. No matter how heinous the criminal, he always undergoes punishment at the hands of the state rather than at the hands of his peers. Thus, the criminal will see himself as 'being the victim,' and all his defense mechanisms - honed by years of denying to himself responsibility for his own criminality - will come into play. Homosexual prison rape is our ultimate social sanction against this mentality. Look how many men refuse to commit crimes because they are scared of being raped. It is degrading and emasculating, and it can be because it is an action clearly taken against the criminal by his social equals. Thus, prison rape is true punishment within the prison community.

Under the current system, no equivalent sanction applies for females. Due to increasing violence among young girls, an equivalent is sorely needed, for both its qualities as a deterrent (which protects those deterred from the negative effects of committing a crime) and as retribution (which allows the community catharsis.) This clearly must change.

As Brownmiller has so perceptively pointed out, rape is the primary mechanism through which men... perpetuate their dominance over women. (Against Our Will, 1975.) It is clear that rape, as a phenomenon, is necessarily perpetrated by men against victims of either gender. Penal authorities may not themselves participate in or directly condone rape if it is to have the desired impact, as a peer sanction. The only obvious solution is mixed-sex prisons in which, under controlled circumstances, male inmates are allowed free rein.

Surely, rape must be as awful an experience for a woman as it is for a man, yet we deny women the benefits of institutionalized prison rape! This failure of will on the part of our common polity has failed women, as the younger generation falls further and further into degradation and violence. Unless the punishment palliates the crime, we will never know justice. The only way for the American government to give women the full benefits of our penal system is for it to stop condescending to them. Women must be jailed and must suffer there just as do men, or society has failed them. To do less is to do violence to the natural rights of women everywhere.

The patriarchy is dead. Long live natural justice, and prison rape.


Reform School Girls! (none / 0) (#2)
by egg troll on Tue Nov 6th, 2001 at 10:11:37 AM PST
I applaud the author of this article for his bravery and courage in taking such a controversial stance. I think that there should be more lesbian rape in society. Furthermore, I think that we as a nation owe it to ourselves to provide women's prisons with implements of lesbian rape, such as handcuffs, stocks and buttplugs. Finally, I think that in order to discourage future females from a path of crime, I propose that such lesbian encounters be televised. I have plenty of kleenex ready.

Posting for the love of the baby Jesus....

minor correction (none / 0) (#3)
by nathan on Tue Nov 6th, 2001 at 10:22:54 AM PST
My proposal includes no mention of lesbian rape. There is no such thing. Rape is a crime of men against women. To say otherwise is to ignore the last twenty years of feminist scholarship.

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

This would explain... (none / 0) (#4)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 6th, 2001 at 11:24:50 AM PST
... your recent application for a job as a guard at a women's prison?

But... (none / 0) (#5)
by FifthVandal on Tue Nov 6th, 2001 at 11:36:50 AM PST
...there has been a case of a woman raping a man.

To read it, scroll down to the FBI TOP 12 DEATHS OF THE YEAR on the above link(if you're using IE, do a Find On This Page for the string 5/2/01 ).

--- I was the fifth vandal on the grassy knoll!

Band Aid (3.66 / 3) (#6)
by Right Hand Man on Tue Nov 6th, 2001 at 11:50:35 AM PST
This proposal would simply be placing a band aid on the real problem. Indeed it would only serve to further expand the root of it, the fact that women are commiting violent acts against one another.

By nature women are not violent. They do not promote war, they are not aggressive, they are not in constant competition with one another over the propagation of their genes. As is the case with the rest of the natural world, those traits tend to appear in the males of a species. Unfortunately, among humans the balance of nature has been upset by the misguided efforts of the feminist movement.

Feminism (which should be renamed masculinism) pushes women to be more like men. It asks them to abandon their protective instincts and embrace the cutthroat world of men. It wants them to be hunters rather than gatherers. Is it any wonder that the products of such a bastardization of the human spirit will exhibit such peculiar traits? Women commiting crimes, it was totally unheard of before the feminist movement wrapped its tentacles around the minds of young girls.

What we need to do, rather than promote more violence, is to encourage women to return to their traditional, not to mention more natural, roles as the matriarchs of the family. They should be bearing children and tending the stove, not climbing the corporate ladder or playing basketball on television. The blame for this problem rests squarely on the shoulders of the ill thinking leftist feminist movement, and they should damn well be punished for it.

"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

I find your ideas intriguing and full of merit (none / 0) (#7)
by Adam Rightmann on Tue Nov 6th, 2001 at 11:55:47 AM PST
though you declined to go into specifics on how a Christian faith-based initiative could be used to reverse this feminist scourge.

A. Rightmann

Yes (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Right Hand Man on Tue Nov 6th, 2001 at 12:40:55 PM PST
I think that it goes without saying that any attempt to reform society is doomed to failure if it isn't based in good Christian values. Who better to lay out a path to salvation than the ones who are already walking it?

Since this feminist rot came upon us in increments, we should rid ourselves of it in increments. One of the methods the feminists used was to take steps to be sure that the minds of young children would be open to receive their pollution, thus we should take steps to erect a few barriers to it. If we could bring prayer back to our schools we could go a long way toward protecting our children during that vulnerable time. At the very least they could spend their free time in an organized prayer group instead of doing who-knows-what.

Future steps: removal of bans on Christian displays on public property; a reigning in of the ACLU; allowing our Christian schools to receive the same taxpayer money as the public schools; repeal of laws against owning poisonous reptiles; putting the Ten Commandments up in prominent places in our schools and government offices; the relaxing of some of those insane EEOC regulations. All of these things would constitute small steps toward strengthening the traditional family and putting us back on the straight and narrow. The more women we can direct away from traditionally male societal roles the better.

We may be on the way as I write this, what with President Bush's Office for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and such, although I would much rather the government just get out of the way and let good people do good work.

"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

Duh (none / 0) (#8)
by specom on Tue Nov 6th, 2001 at 12:09:53 PM PST
And where exactly did you get the idea it doesn't happen already? Hell, I remember a movie about it back when I was a kid. The preferred mthod was with a mop or broom handle.

Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.

I am very disappointed. (none / 0) (#10)
by nathan on Tue Nov 6th, 2001 at 01:30:04 PM PST
If you had read my article, you would know that rape is a crime committed by a man against a woman, by legal and scolarly definition.

By the bye, wymynyst ought to have something to say to you...

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Don't preempt me, oppressor (none / 0) (#12)
by wymynyst on Tue Nov 6th, 2001 at 02:59:48 PM PST

oh, I am so dreadfully sorry (none / 0) (#15)
by nathan on Tue Nov 6th, 2001 at 04:40:06 PM PST
that I expected you to say what you always say.

tkatchev...I mean, Nathan
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Federalization of the System (none / 0) (#11)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 6th, 2001 at 02:40:34 PM PST
I think it's obvious to everyone that female prison rape efforts are already underway and may be effective. However, we must also remember that unlike men, women sometimes enjoy rape. The effects of such an event occuring in the female prison system would have the opposite of the desired effect, sowing the seeds of pleasure in place of the sour fruit of retribution.

We must look to our Democratic leaders in the Senate for the answer. They have recently passed an initiative to move the role of airport security away from unlicensed private practitioners and into the hands of trained, highly paid federal employees. So it must be with prison rapists. Only a trained and motivated federal worker, with say a pay scale of, say, GS-14 or better, could possibly be expected to successfully rape 50 to 100 female inmates per day and guarauntee that none of them enjoy the experience. Federal prison rapists would be trained in expert techniques such as forced, unlubricated sodomy and would be equipped with the very best equipment pioneered by New York State authorities - broom handles, plungers, and the like.

Without federalization of the Prison Rape system, it will likely fall to the old Republican saw of "independent rape contractors", most of whom are rank, untrained amateurs. Stand up now for equity in our federal prison system.


expanding equality under the law (none / 0) (#13)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 6th, 2001 at 03:58:31 PM PST
This is the most ridiculous piece of illogical, circular reasoning I have ever had the displeasure of reading. By the logic presented, men raping men deters crime and therefore recidivism. So, do men actually enjoy being raped by other men, because statistics show that recidivism for male inmates has increased by 45% in the last five years. Interestingly, recidivism has decreased for female inmates 15% in the last five years due to an increase of education and drug treatment...not being raped!! Statistically, 87% of all women incarcerated have been the victims of child sexual abuse and 98.5% have reported being raped. Didn't seem to keep them from crime on the street did it? I am going to assume this was a sick joke article because I swear, in all my years on this planet, I have not met a man who is this stupid, insensitive and ridiculous. Not outloud anyway! unless the author is a sexual predator doing time...that might explain the fixation on men raping men.

You've proven the article (none / 0) (#14)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 6th, 2001 at 04:24:34 PM PST
Allow me to quote you:

recidivism for male inmates has increased by 45% in the last five years.

So men are raped in prison, and are 45% less likely to commit crimes. Great.

recidivism has decreased for female inmates 15% in the last five years

So women are not raped in prison, and are 15% less likely to commit crimes. That pretty much proves it, right there. The %35 advantage in recidivism loss by men over women is a direct consequence of the only difference in their incarceration: rape.

Hopefully by instituting prison rape procedures, we can bring women in line with the remarkable 45% posted by the men. Until that time, they remain unserved by our corrections system and unfit for society.


Learn the definition of recidivism (none / 0) (#26)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 10:02:51 AM PST
Recidivism means the percentage of people being jailed after being released, not the percentage of people who stay out of jail after being released.

Silence. (none / 0) (#33)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 05:00:29 PM PST
Your impudence will not be tolerated. You are obviously in need of a professional raping.


Insanity growing up. (none / 0) (#16)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 7th, 2001 at 06:33:50 AM PST
Dear nathan,
I hope what you wrote is just a joke and not your real thought.
If it is so you are really sick, but your insanity is that kind of insanity that must be cured on your own skin.
Are you so sure about USA justice system? Do you think it is infallible? I wish you one day a big judicial mistake will involve you in a rape case, so that you will feel on your skin the big amount of bullshit you wrote, and hope you'll like it.
May God open your empty skull so that a ray of light could light up the lonely neuron who lives inside.
Bye, Antonio.

God (none / 0) (#17)
by FreemoreJohnson on Wed Nov 7th, 2001 at 07:25:36 AM PST
I don't understand how anyone can write something so vacuous without at some point tipping their hand and showing it was meant ironically.

If perhaps you meant this to point out the insanity of a culture accepting prison rape, which US culture by and large does, I think this might be justified. However, at no point in this article or even in subsequent comments does the author even hint at this. It is presented as a straightforward justification for raping female inmates.

I don't think I even need to point out how empty all of this reasoning is. However, not being as subtle as I hope the author thinks he is, just let me state my belief that the only way you are ever going to really improve people convicted of heinous crimes is to treat them with respect, (that is not to say that they should not be reminded of their own heinous criminal actions) and to try to make them aware of their own potential.

Dehumanizing prisoners through allowing rape is not the answer. This method just reaffirms their current assessment of themselves, that they are worthless, drug dependant wrecks who are already so awful that doing horrific things to others doesn't seem like much of a step down. The only real way to try to improve these people is to cultivate some value and self-love in them.

oh, please (none / 0) (#29)
by nathan on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 12:58:24 PM PST
Dehumanizing prisoners through allowing rape is not the answer...

No, we should feed them and clothe them and give them pet puppy dogs and let them cry on Oprah!!!!

In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic. You must suffer for your crimes if you are to repent of them. You try telling some thuggish monster that he should cultivate some self-love. He'll break your arms (thanks to getting strong off publicly-funded food and exercise equipment, by the way,) kick your dog, mug your mother, kill your father, rape your wife, piss in your goldfish bowl, and then go smoke some "weed."

Well, you can let your society go down the drain. I support the rule of law, and I support the system as it stands, even with all its monstrous inequities. But if we're to arrest (no pun) the incipient explosion in female criminality - we need to start treating women as equals. Treating them as shrinking, blushing, sex-spooked maidens doesn't work too well if they're tearing your throat out with their teeth.

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Boy howdee! (none / 0) (#18)
by Dexter Descarte on Wed Nov 7th, 2001 at 01:39:43 PM PST
I lose sleep every night in fear that some dope smoker will not empathise with the victims of his or her grievious crime.

Wait a minute...

pot (none / 0) (#21)
by nathan on Wed Nov 7th, 2001 at 04:21:36 PM PST
Whether dope smokers realize it or not (they are probably too stoned,) their crimes are real. The mere posession of "pot" is illegal, and we'd do well to remember that. Ought you to be able to disregard a law just because you personally dislike it?! If that's how things were done, I'd kill everyone who looked at me funny. Thanks God (literally) that we live in a society that is under the rule of law.

Pot smokers don't just hurt people involved in the sordid chain of production and distribution, although this is bad enough. Law enforcement officials are harmed in the line of duty when they come between druggies and drugs, and large-scale drug dealers are notorious for violence and cruelty. Drug distribution is usually controlled by underworld elements. Pot smokers condone all this with every toke.

What's worse is that they do violence to the sanctity of the law. Lex regia is one of the oldest principles of our civilization, and disregarding the law means that all society's institutions are being held in similar disdain. If the rule of law breaks down, there will be nothing protecting the weak, the meek, and the innocent.

Maybe a little anal therapy could bring that home to even the most self-indulgent, pot-smoking countercultural rebel. Even if it doesn't, he'll be made to suffer a little of what he made society suffer.


Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

You say pot smokers can't think? (none / 0) (#24)
by Dexter Descarte on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 08:58:36 AM PST
Sordid chain of production!? Pot!? Oh sweet Jesus on crutches that is as disingenous a statement as I have ever heard. For me that chain goes: Me. Sordid I may be, chain I am not. Anyway:

So, due to the fact it is illegal, and the effects of the illegalisation, pot smokers do harm to others? Seems you can make a much better argument that those who made the moronic legislation, primarily in order to protect Hurst's timber and paper interests, need to be punitively ass raped. They are, after all, the ones causing the ills you speak of.

Funny how some redneck Alabama jurist, or redneck Texas governer can blatantly flout the law without getting ass raped, or even threatened with ass rape, when their actions detrimentaly affect approximately 25% of the population yet pot smokers, whose actions affect only themselves, get no such protection.

And, needless to say to anyone with a brain, blind obedience to the law would mean slavery would still be with us. Your position casts the Union's war against the south as a violation of the sanctity of law. Your position casts the Freedom Riders, those participating in anti-segregation sit ins, and Rosa Parks as paragons of criminality.... worse than cop killers! A thinking man has an ethical obligation to flout unjust laws which hurt the cause of justice far more than breaking them does. That you consider the sanctity of ill conceived laws to mean more than the lives of policemen is telling.

fuzzy thinking (none / 0) (#25)
by nathan on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 09:40:22 AM PST
(Most likely "pot"-induced. Anyway, to business.)

> blind obedience to the law would mean slavery would still be with us...

If you don't like the law, work to change it. That's how democracy works. This is the worst kind of liberalist sophistry. Liberalist politics is so nauseating because it pretends to disinterested, superior morality. What presumption to claim that you are a superior arbiter of moral worth than are the courts!

I am pro-abolition myself, and would have voted for any party on the basis of such a plank, almost without regard to the rest of its platform. Trying to change the laws through violence is revolutionary activity and ought to be prosecuted as treason.

Anyway, slavery in the South was abolished, not through insurrection, but through the legitimate conquest of a rebellious "state" that had unilaterally trod upon the incorporating documents of the nation - the fundamentals of the laws of the country. The conquest of the South was deserved, just, and proper. And the North was right to abolish slavery in the South - first, because it was a stated war aim, and thus legitimized by rule of conquest. Second, because it brought the laws of the South into harmony with the laws of the North. Third, because it punished the South by destroying a portion of its wealth. And fourth, because it punished the South's rebellion by demonstrating that rebellion over policy issues will only make the state more resolute in its policy decisions.

As for the "pothead" conspiracy theories, please take them someplace where people care.

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Yea, whatever (none / 0) (#30)
by Dexter Descarte on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 02:15:15 PM PST
You hem you haw, you still maintain that Rosa Park's action is worse than cop-killing.

This is the worst kind of liberalist sophistry. Liberalist politics is so nauseating because it pretends to disinterested, superior morality. What presumption to claim that you are a superior arbiter of moral worth than are the courts!

Let me be blunt: That is pure a jingoistic neo-fascist bullshit. What the fuck is a liberalist anyway? This nation was founded on liberal revolution so don't give me no line of shit about the sanctity of institutions.

And your knowledge of the legality of the Civil War is laughably incompetent. Where in those oh so holy documents of incorperation does it ban seccesion? No-fucking-where. Where does it give the federal government the right to dictate to the states their position on slavery (an institution enshrined in the constitution)? No-fucking-where. In fact the 10th amendment specifically denies the federal government such power over the states. As for your quote unquote "state" comment, it was the US of A that recognized the CSA as a state. Read a damned book about it sometime, don't just parrot what some ignorant football coach told you in high school.

Slavery was a dead institution that had been in decline in the south for 40 years, it disapeared from Brazil in the 1880s without the deaths of half a million people to do it either.

As for the "pothead" conspiracy theories, please take them someplace where people care.

*ahem* Fuck you.

listen, pal (none / 0) (#31)
by nathan on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 03:27:06 PM PST
I don't appreciate your taking such a rude tone. Kindly keep a civil hand on your keyboard. still maintain that Rosa Park's action is worse than cop-killing

I never said any of this. What the hell are you talking about? Anyway, you still seem to confuse morality with realpolitik. Something can be an intolerable political crime without being all that immoral. Was Klaus Fuchs wrong to sell A-bomb secrets to the USSR? According to you, any common pettry criminal is worse.

Institutions are sacred. Are you actually advocating open revolt against the government? Or are you just pretending to, so that you can align yourself with Che Guevara? I'll bet I know the answer. College Marxists score lots of pseudo-intellectual chicks. If you're actually a revolutionary, stop whacking off in front of your computer and get back to making bombs.

Institutions are how we agree to regulate force. Sometimes it becomes necessary to destroy an institution. It's pretty clear that in its late days, Rome had to go down. But violent agitation and criminality within the state are nothing but self-indulgence on the part of a class that considers itself above the law (and justifies this monstrous attitude to itself by incessantly moralizing.)

On one hand, you claim that violence against the South was morally mandated, in order to end slavery. On the other, you say that the lives were wasted because Brazil eliminated slavery without a civil war. I'm sorry, this is obviously more "drugthink." Please try again once you've calmed down (I recommend sweet, nourishing alcohol,) and are ready to talk to me like a citizen, instead of an apoplectic confessed criminal.

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

News for whiners (none / 0) (#34)
by Dexter Descarte on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 09:58:14 AM PST
I don't appreciate your taking such a rude tone. Kindly keep a civil hand on your keyboard.

No. Your insulting reply deserved a hearty "fuck you". Any other reply would have been more than the lame comment you ended with warranted.

I never said any of this. What the hell are you talking about?

I'm talking about this:
Law enforcement officials are harmed in the line of duty when they come between druggies and drugs...
What's worse is that they do violence to the sanctity of the law.

Rosa Parks ignored your oh so holy sanctity of law when she refused to give up her seat, according to your statement that is worse than harming law enforcement officials. Thank you for playing.

That's about it for now, the rest of your post is a mishmashed, illogical, self contradictory, ad hominem attack that is a testement to your massive ignorance of history and complete lack of any skill in comprehending my arguments. You go be a drone. Me, I'll continue to think for myself.

my patience is not infinite (none / 0) (#35)
by nathan on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 01:24:08 PM PST
Your insulting reply deserved a hearty "fuck you."

As opposed to your wildly inflammatory post, with its revoltingly "high-minded" tone, combined with the most loathsome relativist rhetoric, which deserves to be slobbered over in a disgusting circle-jerk. Believe me, I take your insults as compliments, given your complete contempt for law, public safety, and the courts.

Apparently you believe that laws are made to be broken - specifically, by those blessed with superior moral insight. How fortunate for you that you happen to be one of those elect! I suppose that the rest of us ought to subordinate ourselves to you, because your wisdom is so great that you know better than the legislature, the courts, and the people.

In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic. So passeth the arrogance and solipsism of a psuedo-intellectual, self-confratulatory, self-indulgent, atheistic wretch. May I remind you that, while Socrates believed the Athenians were wrong to sentence him, he never argued with their right to do so. He refused to flee the city, preferring to die a citizen rather than live a fugitive from justice.

Contrast the haughty virtue of Socrates with the ridiculous self-indulgence and violence of the generation that gave us the civil rights movement. These people honestly believe that their "morality" entitles them to horribly violate the rights of others, worldwide, as well as trampling the sovreignty of nations and even their own laws domestically. No wonder our laws are so debased - but they are still our laws.

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

You know, your problem... (none / 0) (#36)
by Dexter Descarte on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 01:49:09 PM PST
... is that you are a fool. I think I'll go and talk with someone more productive... like a wall.

You have absolutely no arguments but the pitifull and arrogant assumption of weak, straw-man positions that I do not, and have never claimed to, hold. You ignore my arguments and reply with baseless ad hominem attacks. Your references to historical events interpret them in the light of what you already believe and are incredibly shallow and uninformed. You are a waste of my time.

but.. but... (none / 0) (#37)
by nathan on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 02:04:44 PM PST
Don't leave, Dexter! I looooove you!

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

worst fears confirmed (none / 0) (#19)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 7th, 2001 at 02:38:21 PM PST
Well, that does it. This prooves that the true readership of is composed of either near-radical conservatives (with a good dash of good old christian fundamentalism thrown in here and there), and an entirely seperate group of people who can't stop looking at in the same way that people can't tear their eyes away from a particularly nasty 50 car pileup.

At any rate, you're advocating anarchy, as you're suggesting that the 'natural order' we have come to accept (although I hate it when authors write on behalf of an unamed, unquantified group of people that I do not belong to but am unwillingly grouped with) inside prisons is actually the optimal and most socially benificial order. The only reason men rape men in jail, from my understanding, is that they need sex, and there are no females. So .. give the opportunity to males rape the females, and the males themselves would never get raped. I mean, this isn't even an eye-for-an-eye thing. All you'd end up with is drunk, sexually unsatisfied criminal male minds holding up more banks, so they can fuck whoever they want whenever they want in jail. I mean, shit, yeah, it might deterr a small small percentage of female would-be criminals, at the expense of the female criminal population. Nevermind that most criminals are capable of criminal acts for the very reason that they do not understand that their actions are wrong, or understand or consider the consequences of their actions.

Shit, nathan, you'd only end up making jail look all the more tolerable for male criminals, who make up the majority of the fuckups on this planet anyhow. readership (none / 0) (#20)
by Mendax Veritas on Wed Nov 7th, 2001 at 03:18:08 PM PST
This prooves that the true readership of is composed of...
No, it proves we have a wide variety of readers (much wider than many other sites we could name, despite, as yet, having far fewer readers). Note that many of the comments on this article are in opposition to the article's argument; we clearly aren't all in agreement.

Nathan is not an editor; he's a reader, like you. He submitted a story that was found unusual and interesting enough to post. Part of the point of the "News for Grown-ups" tag is that we don't shy away from controversial views, because adults can cope with unfamiliar ideas, unlike the children (some fully grown) who inhabit many other web sites, who are offended by ideas that differ more than minutely from their own.

Someone here needs to seek help!! (none / 0) (#22)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 12:26:31 AM PST
Being a female myself, although having never been in prison i want to speak from a female side. You want prison rape to be allowed on women right. Not all women are there for crimes against nature,some women are in prison due to something as simple as a parole violation, and you want them to be raped. Now what signal is that sending out to these women once they are freed?? That rape is alright, that they are unowrth of having sex without loved involved, that they are cheap pieces of meat to be had by all. Maybe i am from a real far planet, but i have always been told that violence leads to more violence. I know that the detterence for women,as well as men, needs to be put in place, but rape is not the answer.
Also men don't not commit crimes to avoid going to jail and being raped, some men know what's right from wrong and want to do what's right in society. Some of the offenders were stoned on something when they committed these crimes and when the "stoned"effect was no longer with them, the crime was done. Yet other men just know their ass from a hole in the ground and want to be productive members of society for themselves, their families and society all the way around.
By the way i am a senior at a local university majoring in government and criminal justice, just didn't want you to think i was a woman with no background on the subject.

ok, this is getting old. (none / 0) (#23)
by nathan on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 06:29:22 AM PST
You say you're in college. Ever hear of a dude called Johnathan Swift? I have a modest proposal for you. Try reading him.

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

something as simple as a parole violation? (none / 0) (#32)
by FifthVandal on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 03:33:55 PM PST
Erm...surely, to have a parole to violate, one must have been convicted of something or other in the first place.
--- I was the fifth vandal on the grassy knoll!

Prison Rape (none / 0) (#27)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 10:43:18 AM PST
This is the sickest thing I have ever read. I don't even think the writer deserves for me to comment on this, he doesn't even deserve to be breathing my air. To suggest that human beings are tortured and treated this way is disgusting. I suggest Nathan is raped over and over again, he's the one who deserves it.

you're new here, aren't you? (none / 0) (#28)
by nathan on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 12:19:51 PM PST

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

I'm not impressed (none / 0) (#38)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Dec 5th, 2001 at 05:45:05 PM PST
This site is waste of time and is made by an uneducated VICTEM of society who wishes the world belonged to them. Let's all be thankful that God and our Government is not as ignorant as the creator of this site.


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 The name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to