I haven't read it, but I would have thought a species that practices mandatory castration would have a population problem. In a population with an equal number of males and females, each male must have an average of at least two children to avoid the population going into terminal decline. Equestria is sometimes represented by fans as having more mares than stallions, and that just increases the average number of foals each stallion must have (on average) to keep up the population.
This reminds of a much-less-skilfully handled story with a similar premise, except that Rumble was the protagonist, and the approach to it was much less kind. Still pretty damn awful, and makes no damn sense from any rational standpoint that ponies are normally, you know, benevolent and unlikely to do things so drastic for a social experiment, but at least it's treated as an honest premise for a decent drama story and not an excuse for poorly-written, gory fetish clop like the other.
Well, I always like gelding stories always fascinate, so far this is a very soft approach on the process and is generally has been wildly accepted for at least 50 years from the sounds of thing(the fragility part ), sense there still seems to still have talks about some of the smaller distasteful things young stallion but they seems to allude lot of unspecified violence that the stallions supposedly did, the more importantly the infidelity to their partners seems to me a large part of it, which to me sounds like a lot of mass indoctrinations. As farfetch as this scenario is, I wonder what sparked the decision to institutionalist the process, and if what they did before was worst way before for the stallion which I am guessing they used studs to impregnate mares; I have a hard time imagining that that stallions were ever that dangerous before, and that it was purely ideologically motivated by the throne or the clergy of some sort.
I wonder how love is developed between Mare and gelding compared to stallions, I don't think it was that mares would find a lot pf appeal to be with geldings if they are hardwired to see stallions as appealing in the first place?
Still, the idea that gelding can still choose to have foals, and that sperm samples are preserved is interesting, which means it is a very relabel process, but I wonder if their had ever been a case where they lost a large portion of their saved specimen. I would also wonder if the if the sperms the mare receives from the centers really are those of their stallions their are married with, and what they would do if they actually lost all of them in some catastrophic accident?
Like the idea that Geldings were mostly used slaves or if they were gelded for criminal acts. I had mostly viewed gelding less then ponies and that stallions were the privileged few that are selected as breeding studs for selected breading. In that case I would imagine that the mares were also subject to control by those who control the studs if they ever want to hope have foals of their own.
9163225 I didn't say Trick was doing a bad job with that. I mentioned in my comment that I consider it dystopian (and added a few 1984 references because why not) and if it was a happy dystopia, I'd say "utopia" instead.
Hmm somehow feels like preserving a sample of what is in most cases not fertile sperm wouldnt fix the reproductive problem. If we are extremely generous and and say that half the collected sperm is capable of impregnating a mare. We still end up with a society that dies out within a generation (i mean even if were generous, a 0.5 fertility rate is extremly terrible and way below even the sub-replacement rate). Having older/younger siblings seems like it would be impossible, besides a twin/tripplet or such.
Stallions start producing sperm after a year plus , but the peak/full potential is reached around 3 or so years. This seems to be even before the (not so common) minimum of a year.
Even then, some geldlings still show sexual behavior. Can be up to every 1 in 3-4 from what i found, no idea how reliable that one is. That might not be that critical in a herd, but were talking about a whole nation here.
9163225 That depends on your perspective. There's less violent crime at the cost of a small operation that rarely has physical or psychological complications. Featherweight has a different perspective at present, however, and he's the protagonist.
9163278 If they can use magic or whatever other means to manipulate the hormones... why remove the testicles in the first place though besides "just because its easier, lol who cares about them anyway" ?
I haven't read this but the overall theme from what I have seen in the description and comments sound similar to a story me and a buddy of mine made. I can't remember if I deleted it or not but it's similar
9163309 Maybe ponies operate on some sort of blue/orange morality where mind control is immoral, but genital mutilation somehow is. Generally, for a dystopian universe to work, it has to have some semblance of probability, as in, "this didn't happen, but it could happen" sort of thing – that's, I guess, half of the appeal of dystopia as a genre. Hell, it may even be a "this does happen, though not on a global scale", like when some people compare the fate of women in Muslim societies to The Handmaid's Tale or what this handy picture shows: ritholtz.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/rrxW1.png
In case of this fic, any "this could happen" message is not quite present – there were quite a few moments during reading when I thought "why do they bother?" or "there are simpler solutions than castrating half of the population" and, as your comment shows, author's explanations only raise further questions. It may be a rabbit hole leading straight to the idea's weak foundation, though I still hope Trick can pull it off.
9163296 I do suppose there's a little less less violent crime, but this does not stop or lessen any crimes from mares. It also works on the assumption that all crimes violent crimes from males has to do with Testosterone, which isn't true cause ponies are smart enough and emotional enough to choose to fight anyway. And If male ponies are affected enough that it does stop them from violence, then this will end up with a shortage of soldiers, police, and other jobs that might need force. Huh, in this world I can now see how both the changelings and storm creatures ran roughshod over the army.
Also the in-built hatred of the male sex that is being taught is very disturbing. Colts are being taught that they all will grow up to be monsters and that there is something wrong with them that means they have to be fixed. That's going to cause issues. I mean Feather hates what should be a natural part of himself. That's going to really mess up any developing mind.
9163295 Another problem with storage is they only get one sample per colt. Unless the spells increase production by a order of magnitude, each gelding only can have so many attempts at having a foal. If for some reason the sample doesn't take, or that pony wants to more then one; to bad so sad. And only goodness know if the sample is lost or damaged, then they are also out of luck.
I must admit, I find your stories are disturbing yet fascinating, Trick Question...I am honestly worried about the mind behind a man who brings, to quote Admiral Biscuit, "gasoline and matches to FimFiction," on such a regular basis.
Although I would argue its more your stories are pure Azidoazide Azide.
See just like Azidoazide Azide, the story will explode. It maybe in upvotes. It maybe in downvotes. It maybe in comments. But one way or another, it will explode.
I have not read a story that has made me this upset since Fall of Equestria. There are so many things I find morally repulsive, the value of safety over freedom, genital mutilation of minors and misandry (I would indeed use that word but why is it noted as misspelled?) for example. Now, I can argue how I came to the conclusion of why the principle of safety over freedom is not a good one. I can argue what that principle also justifies that the diarchy might not like that much. Arguing why it would be impossible or just impractical to actually do what has been done however is not very productive. The fact that it has happened states that it works and we are supposed to "suspend our disbelief" or try ourself to find reasons why it could work before dismissing it. The author cannot possibly hope to cover every single possible situation immediately without slowing down the story a bit much. Arguing in this way then is not so much criticism of the story and more criticism of the authors intelligence I would say.
I am genuinely interested in what arguments will be provided to further justify the castrations as I am not the slightest convinced as of now. But most of all I want to see what will happen in this story. It may have my blood boiling but I know better then to prove the diarchy right so to speak.
I am very curious however of why there are still males in the first place? The only reason why male and female even exists is for reproduction. Now that one sex is no longer allowed to do that I wonder why they have not been breed away? Is it just technical/magical limitations or is it something else..?
I must admit, I find your stories are disturbing yet fascinating, Trick Question...I am honestly worried about the mind behind a man who brings, to quote Admiral Biscuit, "gasoline and matches to FimFiction," on such a regular basis.
Or is it that the rest of us are lazy and won’t tackle the hard stuff, the uncomfortable stuff?
I recently pre-read a story that similarly addresses a difficult topic and I’ll be honest, it kind of fucked me up for a week straight. But maybe that’s the kind of thing that we need to put out there and consider the questions it raises, you know? Like, here on Earth, if mandatory castration of all males eliminated 95% of violence, would that be something that we should do, or is that too horrible to contemplate?
Like, here on Earth, if mandatory castration of all males eliminated 95% of violence, would that be something that we should do, or is that too horrible to contemplate?
Mandatory castration is violence.
9163949 Next chapter has an example of a mare attacking another mare, so your points are very valid.
9166073 "The greater good" is a very dangerous principle to follow as you can justify whatever you want if it will be "worth it" in the end so to speak. But that is just one example. The value of safety over freedom is another principle that can justify a lot of things we might not like.
To not have principles makes it a matter of convenience of what should be done and every individual is then free to chose their own goal and method to achieve it.
"With laws shall land be built" -King Valdemar II. No rules, no order. No order, only chaos. Only chaos, suffering. I think every law, every principle and every rule is a question about philosophy as much it is about function. The better supported a law/rule/principle is by both the better.
9166921 9166073 Makuta makes excellent points. Putting point values on atrocities is... iffy, to say the least.
Besides, about war, that's a decision made by the higher-ups, be they pony (meaning mare) or declared on Equestria by an outside force, so stallions not having balls is immaterial—or even detrimental. Forcing a percentage of your population into docility means they can't be used as soldiers, unless you re-train them to be able to inflict violence, defeating the purpose of the initial mutilation.
Lastly, the next chapter has an anecdote of a mare kicking another hard enough to almost crack her ribs, yet nobody is calling for chopping off legs. She just paid a fine, because
there were witnesses to what she'd said, and they were sympathetic given what I'd been through
Stallions get mutilated regardless of if they did anything, mares who do get violent are given plenty leniancy.
"The greater good" is a very dangerous principle to follow as you can justify whatever you want if it will be "worth it" in the end so to speak. But that is just one example. The value of safety over freedom is another principle that can justify a lot of things we might not like.
Well, obviously this is an extreme case (obviously), but having said that, I think you hit the nail on the head with “the value of safety over freedom.” That’s really the line where you have to decide if something’s worth legislating or not. There are obvious cases where it is--things like murder probably ought to be illegal. But there are also less obvious cases: why should anybody care if I burn tires in my backyard? Especially if the pall of black smoke isn’t drifting over their property? Yet, that’s illegal here (well, I’m pretty sure it is).
I do think that when it comes to personal body autonomy, the government ought to keep their hands off, but then not everybody thinks the same as I do.
To not have principles makes it a matter of convenience of what should be done and every individual is then free to chose their own goal and method to achieve it.
And that does potentially come with the downside of me burning tires in my backyard (the goal, getting rid of tires; the method, fire).
"With laws shall land be built" -King Valdemar II. No rules, no order. No order, only chaos. Only chaos, suffering. I think every law, every principle and every rule is a question about philosophy as much it is about function. The better supported a law/rule/principle is by both the better.
Yes, I’m with you 100% on this.
One of the best discussions of this I ever saw was actually in a fanfic (and here we are again discussing laws and such) . . . It’s a Dangerous Business, with Rarity discussing ‘freedom from’ and ‘freedom to’ with Rainbow Dash.
Makuta makes excellent points. Putting point values on atrocities is... iffy, to say the least.
Oh, it totally is iffy. But in a way, maybe you’ve got to do it. Or we do do it. I dunno, it’s hard to say. Like there’s a lot of morality where there’s two obvious extremes and then there’s a whole ton of grey area in between--some of it dark grey, some light grey, etc. Hitler is bad, Ghandi is good . . . but a hundred years ago, or two hundred, maybe Hitler is good and Ghandi is bad--shifting morals play a part, too.
Besides, about war, that's a decision made by the higher-ups, be they pony (meaning mare) or declared on Equestria by an outside force, so stallions not having balls is immaterial—or even detrimental. Forcing a percentage of your population into docility means they can't be used as soldiers, unless you re-train them to be able to inflict violence, defeating the purpose of the initial mutilation.
Well, yeah, war is a decision made by the higher-ups, at least usually. Even that line’s fuzzy nowadays; is terrorism war? If you gelded would-be terrorists, would they turn into productive members of society (or of course the converse, would gelding a formerly productive member of society turn him into a terrorist)?
I don’t think that you’ve got much of a leg to stand on with the “forcing a percentage of your population into docility” argument; to me that seems to suggest that you might be arguing that banning murder is bad because if you get in a war, you’ll have to train your soldiers to murder.
Yeah, I’m taking that to the extreme, and I’m sure that’s not what you mean by it, but it does come off that way, kind of.
I don’t think that you’ve got much of a leg to stand on with the “forcing a percentage of your population into docility” argument; to me that seems to suggest that you might be arguing that banning murder is bad because if you get in a war, you’ll have to train your soldiers to murder.
Yeah, I’m taking that to the extreme, and I’m sure that’s not what you mean by it, but it does come off that way, kind of.
That's not the case discussed here. You have a state that performs surgery to make a percentage of their population unable to do something. If you then require them to do the thing you set out to make them incapable of, you are required to undo your own efforts from before.
And by the way, what you noted? That's basically what happens with every army in the real world. Many modern societies have a ban on physical violence in place. Their soldiers do need to be able to inflict physical violence, however, and they're trained to be able to on command, in spite of it being banned otherwise.
This Equestria is a special case in that it aims to not have stallions become violent under any circumstances, whether they be rapist or acting in self-defence. They're deprived of any choice in the matter, or so is the idea. They're literally neutered. This is more like brainwashing people into being, say, hydrophobic—you should not then expect them to make good sailors.
Or, to give another example: If you cut your citizens' achilles tendons as a mandatory measure, you will have difficulties filling up your track teams for the Olympics.
One thing I'd throw in, since the whole "military prowess is stored in the balls"-thing is being debated, is that one of the most important factors in the success of an army is the armies willingness to operate as a compliant, willing whole. A castrated army is less likely to waste time and energy on dick waving and less likely to take stupid risks, and so may well be more effective in the long term.
Trick Question, once again bringing gasoline and matches to FimFiction.
<commences to read>
9163133
Somewhere between long story and novella, I was thinking. It might end up being shorter though.
derpicdn.net/img/view/2015/7/1/927497.jpg
I haven't read it, but I would have thought a species that practices mandatory castration would have a population problem.
In a population with an equal number of males and females, each male must have an average of at least two children to avoid the population going into terminal decline. Equestria is sometimes represented by fans as having more mares than stallions, and that just increases the average number of foals each stallion must have (on average) to keep up the population.
9163156
When you read it you'll see that reproduction is addressed.
This reminds of a much-less-skilfully handled story with a similar premise, except that Rumble was the protagonist, and the approach to it was much less kind. Still pretty damn awful, and makes no damn sense from any rational standpoint that ponies are normally, you know, benevolent and unlikely to do things so drastic for a social experiment, but at least it's treated as an honest premise for a decent drama story and not an excuse for poorly-written, gory fetish clop like the other.
And here I was wondering when I'd run into my first MLP holocaust story.
Well, I always like gelding stories always fascinate, so far this is a very soft approach on the process and is generally has been wildly accepted for at least 50 years from the sounds of thing(the fragility part ), sense there still seems to still have talks about some of the smaller distasteful things young stallion but they seems to allude lot of unspecified violence that the stallions supposedly did, the more importantly the infidelity to their partners seems to me a large part of it, which to me sounds like a lot of mass indoctrinations. As farfetch as this scenario is, I wonder what sparked the decision to institutionalist the process, and if what they did before was worst way before for the stallion which I am guessing they used studs to impregnate mares; I have a hard time imagining that that stallions were ever that dangerous before, and that it was purely ideologically motivated by the throne or the clergy of some sort.
I wonder how love is developed between Mare and gelding compared to stallions, I don't think it was that mares would find a lot pf appeal to be with geldings if they are hardwired to see stallions as appealing in the first place?
Still, the idea that gelding can still choose to have foals, and that sperm samples are preserved is interesting, which means it is a very relabel process, but I wonder if their had ever been a case where they lost a large portion of their saved specimen. I would also wonder if the if the sperms the mare receives from the centers really are those of their stallions their are married with, and what they would do if they actually lost all of them in some catastrophic accident?
Like the idea that Geldings were mostly used slaves or if they were gelded for criminal acts. I had mostly viewed gelding less then ponies and that stallions were the privileged few that are selected as breeding studs for selected breading. In that case I would imagine that the mares were also subject to control by those who control the studs if they ever want to hope have foals of their own.
9163211
I might be missing something here, but I don't think this verse was intended to be happy-go-lucky
9163225
I didn't say Trick was doing a bad job with that. I mentioned in my comment that I consider it dystopian (and added a few 1984 references because why not) and if it was a happy dystopia, I'd say "utopia" instead.
9163278
Can't wait, then.
Hmm somehow feels like preserving a sample of what is in most cases not fertile sperm wouldnt fix the reproductive problem. If we are extremely generous and and say that half the collected sperm is capable of impregnating a mare. We still end up with a society that dies out within a generation (i mean even if were generous, a 0.5 fertility rate is extremly terrible and way below even the sub-replacement rate). Having older/younger siblings seems like it would be impossible, besides a twin/tripplet or such.
Stallions start producing sperm after a year plus , but the peak/full potential is reached around 3 or so years. This seems to be even before the (not so common) minimum of a year.
Even then, some geldlings still show sexual behavior. Can be up to every 1 in 3-4 from what i found, no idea how reliable that one is. That might not be that critical in a herd, but were talking about a whole nation here.
9163225
That depends on your perspective. There's less violent crime at the cost of a small operation that rarely has physical or psychological complications. Featherweight has a different perspective at present, however, and he's the protagonist.
9163278
If they can use magic or whatever other means to manipulate the hormones... why remove the testicles in the first place though besides "just because its easier, lol who cares about them anyway" ?
Well, this is viscerally disturbing on multiple levels.
Do go on.
I haven't read this but the overall theme from what I have seen in the description and comments sound similar to a story me and a buddy of mine made. I can't remember if I deleted it or not but it's similar
9163309
Maybe ponies operate on some sort of blue/orange morality where mind control is immoral, but genital mutilation somehow is. Generally, for a dystopian universe to work, it has to have some semblance of probability, as in, "this didn't happen, but it could happen" sort of thing – that's, I guess, half of the appeal of dystopia as a genre. Hell, it may even be a "this does happen, though not on a global scale", like when some people compare the fate of women in Muslim societies to The Handmaid's Tale or what this handy picture shows:
ritholtz.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/rrxW1.png
In case of this fic, any "this could happen" message is not quite present – there were quite a few moments during reading when I thought "why do they bother?" or "there are simpler solutions than castrating half of the population" and, as your comment shows, author's explanations only raise further questions. It may be a rabbit hole leading straight to the idea's weak foundation, though I still hope Trick can pull it off.
This shit sucked.
when rumble started to describe his procedure it me me cringe in pain.
9163626
Fic Demander, you sound male.
This is really disturbing.
Can't wait to read more.
9163670
I know one way you can stop him from sounding male.
9163296
I do suppose there's a little less less violent crime, but this does not stop or lessen any crimes from mares. It also works on the assumption that all crimes violent crimes from males has to do with Testosterone, which isn't true cause ponies are smart enough and emotional enough to choose to fight anyway. And If male ponies are affected enough that it does stop them from violence, then this will end up with a shortage of soldiers, police, and other jobs that might need force. Huh, in this world I can now see how both the changelings and storm creatures ran roughshod over the army.
Also the in-built hatred of the male sex that is being taught is very disturbing. Colts are being taught that they all will grow up to be monsters and that there is something wrong with them that means they have to be fixed. That's going to cause issues. I mean Feather hates what should be a natural part of himself. That's going to really mess up any developing mind.
9163295
Another problem with storage is they only get one sample per colt. Unless the spells increase production by a order of magnitude, each gelding only can have so many attempts at having a foal. If for some reason the sample doesn't take, or that pony wants to more then one; to bad so sad. And only goodness know if the sample is lost or damaged, then they are also out of luck.
I must admit, I find your stories are disturbing yet fascinating, Trick Question...I am honestly worried about the mind behind a man who brings, to quote Admiral Biscuit, "gasoline and matches to FimFiction," on such a regular basis.
Although I would argue its more your stories are pure Azidoazide Azide.
See just like Azidoazide Azide, the story will explode. It maybe in upvotes. It maybe in downvotes. It maybe in comments. But one way or another, it will explode.
Still...glad that you post this stuff.
9163125
... and liquid oxygen, I guess.
9164140
Woman, but not that it matters.
I have not read a story that has made me this upset since Fall of Equestria. There are so many things I find morally repulsive, the value of safety over freedom, genital mutilation of minors and misandry (I would indeed use that word but why is it noted as misspelled?) for example. Now, I can argue how I came to the conclusion of why the principle of safety over freedom is not a good one. I can argue what that principle also justifies that the diarchy might not like that much. Arguing why it would be impossible or just impractical to actually do what has been done however is not very productive. The fact that it has happened states that it works and we are supposed to "suspend our disbelief" or try ourself to find reasons why it could work before dismissing it. The author cannot possibly hope to cover every single possible situation immediately without slowing down the story a bit much. Arguing in this way then is not so much criticism of the story and more criticism of the authors intelligence I would say.
I am genuinely interested in what arguments will be provided to further justify the castrations as I am not the slightest convinced as of now. But most of all I want to see what will happen in this story. It may have my blood boiling but I know better then to prove the diarchy right so to speak.
I am very curious however of why there are still males in the first place? The only reason why male and female even exists is for reproduction. Now that one sex is no longer allowed to do that I wonder why they have not been breed away? Is it just technical/magical limitations or is it something else..?
My current feelings about this story:
9164354
Gotta get that fire blazing.
9164140
Or is it that the rest of us are lazy and won’t tackle the hard stuff, the uncomfortable stuff?
I recently pre-read a story that similarly addresses a difficult topic and I’ll be honest, it kind of fucked me up for a week straight. But maybe that’s the kind of thing that we need to put out there and consider the questions it raises, you know? Like, here on Earth, if mandatory castration of all males eliminated 95% of violence, would that be something that we should do, or is that too horrible to contemplate?
9165789
Mandatory castration is violence.
9163949
Next chapter has an example of a mare attacking another mare, so your points are very valid.
9165864
Yes, no question, but is it less violent than murder or rape or war? Is it conceivably the lesser of two evils?
9166073
"The greater good" is a very dangerous principle to follow as you can justify whatever you want if it will be "worth it" in the end so to speak. But that is just one example. The value of safety over freedom is another principle that can justify a lot of things we might not like.
To not have principles makes it a matter of convenience of what should be done and every individual is then free to chose their own goal and method to achieve it.
"With laws shall land be built" -King Valdemar II. No rules, no order. No order, only chaos. Only chaos, suffering. I think every law, every principle and every rule is a question about philosophy as much it is about function. The better supported a law/rule/principle is by both the better.
Law making is not a trivial affair I think .
9166921
9166073
Makuta makes excellent points. Putting point values on atrocities is... iffy, to say the least.
Besides, about war, that's a decision made by the higher-ups, be they pony (meaning mare) or declared on Equestria by an outside force, so stallions not having balls is immaterial—or even detrimental. Forcing a percentage of your population into docility means they can't be used as soldiers, unless you re-train them to be able to inflict violence, defeating the purpose of the initial mutilation.
Lastly, the next chapter has an anecdote of a mare kicking another hard enough to almost crack her ribs, yet nobody is calling for chopping off legs. She just paid a fine, because
Stallions get mutilated regardless of if they did anything, mares who do get violent are given plenty leniancy.
9166921
Well, obviously this is an extreme case (obviously), but having said that, I think you hit the nail on the head with “the value of safety over freedom.” That’s really the line where you have to decide if something’s worth legislating or not. There are obvious cases where it is--things like murder probably ought to be illegal. But there are also less obvious cases: why should anybody care if I burn tires in my backyard? Especially if the pall of black smoke isn’t drifting over their property? Yet, that’s illegal here (well, I’m pretty sure it is).
I do think that when it comes to personal body autonomy, the government ought to keep their hands off, but then not everybody thinks the same as I do.
And that does potentially come with the downside of me burning tires in my backyard (the goal, getting rid of tires; the method, fire).
Yes, I’m with you 100% on this.
One of the best discussions of this I ever saw was actually in a fanfic (and here we are again discussing laws and such) . . . It’s a Dangerous Business, with Rarity discussing ‘freedom from’ and ‘freedom to’ with Rainbow Dash.
Here’s a link to the relevant chapter (since I don’t think this is the right place to just cut & paste a big ole wall of text).
It’s really not. We try to do the best we can, usually, and we don’t always get it right.
9167749
Oh, it totally is iffy. But in a way, maybe you’ve got to do it. Or we do do it. I dunno, it’s hard to say. Like there’s a lot of morality where there’s two obvious extremes and then there’s a whole ton of grey area in between--some of it dark grey, some light grey, etc. Hitler is bad, Ghandi is good . . . but a hundred years ago, or two hundred, maybe Hitler is good and Ghandi is bad--shifting morals play a part, too.
Well, yeah, war is a decision made by the higher-ups, at least usually. Even that line’s fuzzy nowadays; is terrorism war? If you gelded would-be terrorists, would they turn into productive members of society (or of course the converse, would gelding a formerly productive member of society turn him into a terrorist)?
I don’t think that you’ve got much of a leg to stand on with the “forcing a percentage of your population into docility” argument; to me that seems to suggest that you might be arguing that banning murder is bad because if you get in a war, you’ll have to train your soldiers to murder.
Yeah, I’m taking that to the extreme, and I’m sure that’s not what you mean by it, but it does come off that way, kind of.
9167830
That's not the case discussed here. You have a state that performs surgery to make a percentage of their population unable to do something. If you then require them to do the thing you set out to make them incapable of, you are required to undo your own efforts from before.
And by the way, what you noted? That's basically what happens with every army in the real world. Many modern societies have a ban on physical violence in place. Their soldiers do need to be able to inflict physical violence, however, and they're trained to be able to on command, in spite of it being banned otherwise.
This Equestria is a special case in that it aims to not have stallions become violent under any circumstances, whether they be rapist or acting in self-defence. They're deprived of any choice in the matter, or so is the idea. They're literally neutered. This is more like brainwashing people into being, say, hydrophobic—you should not then expect them to make good sailors.
Or, to give another example: If you cut your citizens' achilles tendons as a mandatory measure, you will have difficulties filling up your track teams for the Olympics.
One thing I'd throw in, since the whole "military prowess is stored in the balls"-thing is being debated, is that one of the most important factors in the success of an army is the armies willingness to operate as a compliant, willing whole. A castrated army is less likely to waste time and energy on dick waving and less likely to take stupid risks, and so may well be more effective in the long term.
9163290
Sorry for the double post. FF on phone is not good at showing message responses.