. You expressed support for Jessica's advocacy of harsh judicial corporal punishment for female offenders if it is used for male offenders, saying:
neither [Jessica's] post of July nor that of today in the same thread (here)
are unreasonable. In fact, as you already know, I concur with those views.
So how do I justify to myself the fact that you are on my 'Very Highly Respected Contributor' list and Jessica is on my 'ho ho' list?
Easily! I have I think read everything you have posted here. What I have read leads me to believe that in supporting Jessica you are not aligning yourself with 'her' rather extreme ideas on school and judicial CP but with 'her' apparent support for equality of treatment between the sexes. Sadly in Jessica's case I think this probably arises from wishful thinking about what 'she' would like to see women and girls experience, but I suppose a principal of fairness is still a principal of fairness even if its roots are suspect.
As far as I recall you have never expressed any particularly strong support for judicial corporal punishment for either sex, except perhaps at a level of school type caning punishments as an alternative to difficult to afford fines for minor offences, for instance for TV licence evasion. You certainly haven't positively gloried in the mechanism of severe judicial CP, the nakedness, the securing on a punishment apparatus, the bleeding wounds, the scars, whereas Jessica seems to find these quite fascinating, especially if inflicted on women.
As regards school CP I have not read a post of yours that I can fault as in any way suspect as regards penalty or application. In Jessica's case I simply don't believe a word of it. Jessica is I think probably a sad male with an overload of CP fetishes, including falaka/bastinado. Still, we don't get much of the latter on this estimable Forum, so at least it makes a change!