The effect of ram replacement and sex ratio on the sexual response of anoestrous ewes

It is accepted that an important source of variation in the response of anoestrous ewes, to the introduction of rams, is the intensity of male stimulation. The aim of this study was to investigate strategies capable of increasing the impact and transmission of the ram stimuli. In Experiment 1, two groups of seven ewes (Bluefaced Leicester male x Swaledale female) were individually penned with one ram and for the next 6 h the rams either remained in the pen or were replaced hourly. Blood samples revealed no difference in the pattern of plasma LH secretion. In Experiment 2, three groups of 16 ewes were either introduced to one ram, individually (H) or in groups of 8 (L), or remained isolated. Ram introduction increased the plasma LH pulsatility (P < 0.001). H ewes displayed more (nine versus six) male-induced LH pulses (pulses occurring within the first 45 min) and more pulses per 8 h intervals than the L group of ewes (1.9 +/- 0.3 versus 1.3 +/- 0.3), but these differences were not significant. It was concluded that (i) frequent replacement of rams within a few hours following ram introduction to ewes does not further improve the response of ewes, especially if the ram:ewe ratio is high; (ii) the characterization of the plasma LH secretion parameters during a period of 6-8 h does not seem to be an effective method to detect small differences in the intensity of stimulation received by the ewes when exposed to rams; (iii) North Country Mule ewes (Bluefaced Leicester male x Swaledale female) in the UK respond to the presence of rams in spring (late oestrous/early anoestrous season) with an elevation in plasma LH secretion. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Graceful remedies: understanding grace in the Catholic Church's treatment of clerical child sexual abuse

This article examines advocacy of Catholic restorative justice for clerical child sexual abuse from the standpoint of feminist criminological critiques of the use of restorative mediation in sexual offence cases. In particular, it questions the Catholic invocation of grace and forgiveness of survivors of abuse in light of critical feminist concerns about the exploitation of emotions in restorative practices, especially in regard to sexual and other gender-based offences. In the context of sexual abuse, the Catholic appeal to grace has the potential for turning into an extraordinary demand made of victims not only to rehabilitate offenders and the church in the eyes of the community, but also to work towards the spiritual absolution of the abuser. This unique feature of Catholic-oriented restorative justice raises important concerns in terms of feminist critiques of the risk of abuses of power within mediation, and is also incompatible with orthodox restorative justice theory, which, although it advocates a ‘spiritual’ response to crime, is concerned foremost with the rights, needs and experiences of victims.

The Léger ruling as another example of the ECJ’s disappointingly reticent approach to the protection of the rights of LGB persons under EU law

In the 1980s, in the midst of the AIDS epidemic, many countries introduced lifetime bans on blood donations by men who had sexual relations with men (MSM). These blanket bans have, recently, begun to be challenged and, as a result, many countries have either relaxed them or completely abolished them. The case under examination (Léger ) is another instance of questioning the legality of such a ban. In particular, in this case, the European Court of Justice was called on to rule on whether a measure such as the French lifetime exclusion from blood donation of the MSM population that was at issue before the referring court is contrary to EU law. The Court ruled that although discriminatory on the ground of sexual orientation, such a ban may be justified in certain circumstances, and left it to the national court to make the final decision. This article seeks to analyse the case and to explain why, in the author’s view, the Court can be accused of—once more—not going far enough in the protection of lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) rights.