This is one of those takes that’s so controversial I’m afraid to post it, which is exactly why I have to.
I neither endorse nor disavow this, and no, I’m not in the picture.
If there’s a way to reduce the amount of sexual violence people inflict on children than it should be at least explored. Focusing on ensuring past sex offenders don’t recommit the same crimes is not a bad thing at all.
A lot of it is because it is a cycle. Breaking that cycle will free us from this trauma
Anger management, drug counselling, alcoholics anonymous, psychotherapy, and much more exist for ‘normal’ offenders.
For SO’s it’s chemical castration.
We don’t do that foe the same reasons we don’t do the death penalty. Too many ways an innocent can be wrongly punished.
Spouse of a Canadian nurse who works in forensic psychiatry here! For pedophiles who are caught and charged in Canada chemical castration -is- one of the things that our legal system can order. It seems like you’re under the impression it isn’t already happening, when it is.
I will note that from what I’ve heard, pedophilia comes in two types of “flavours”: the people who are attracted to minors, and are generally direstressed by it and want it to stop, where chemical castration appeals to them as an option to reduce sex drive and thereby the impulses. Then there are those who aren’t necessarily sexually attracted to children, so much as the sense of power that comes from doing these things. I have no evidence, but suspect Epstein et al. to be people with these types of motivations. While the castration can help some of their impulses, there’s more to it that requires other interventions. They’re also typically not interested in reducing this drive because they don’t feel bad about it.
Anyway, gathering more info to better support the folks who don’t want to follow their urges, and stop them from harming anyone before it happens is super important. I think the power motivated are part of a larger problem within our society that isn’t going to be dismantled just through this study. But hopefully I’m wrong, and we’ll at least glean some strategies.
*edited to clarify a thought.
Canada absolutely does do this.
But.
Chemical castration is not permanent. It’s some drug/chemical that basically blocks a hormone or something. Supposed to reduce libido.
As far as I know it’s the only pharmaceutical that can be legally ordered to take as condition of sentencing etc.
All it does is suppress something. It doesn’t treat it.
It’s like putting mittens on someone who robbed a bank.
Except it opens up the possibility or exploration of topics such as eugenics. It also has a lot of potential side effects on the body that may or may not be known. This could open the government to lawsuits as SO’s can say they were negatively impacted by these drugs. You’re correct in that it’s not permanent. But it doesn’t mean it’s safe or the best course of action.
There isn’t really an option with no costs to them, though, is there? You have people who are attracted to children, and people who have abused children (maybe or maybe not while young themselves). Child abuse gets near-universal bad reviews, so you’re left with a trolley problem in the end where you need to find the least harmful, most fair solution. Someone is going to pay something.
You can make a deontological argument that anything medical is off the table, I guess, but deontology feels very unfair when you’re on the losing end of it - we brought in MAID to fix that, and homeless people are still often violating the law just by existing literally anywhere.
There isn’t really an option with no costs to them, though, is there?
I mean isn’t this article what this is about? That there is a way to help rehabilitate these offenders without having them commit these crimes again or even for the first time? The article begs the question in asking “Why aren’t we exploring how successful this would be if we used it on a larger scale?”. Which is a fair question to ask.
I suppose it depends how effective this actually is. I’m kinda skeptical that you can talk someone out of being a pedophile, or into being less of a pedophile. That’s not usually how sexual preferences work (mandatory note that most preferences are harmless; some people try to muddy the waters).
We haven’t even seriously tried it, though, because the politics of it are very bad. That’s definitely dumb.
That’s entirely my point.
It doesn’t treat it. Not really.
It suppress urges. Chemically.
There are other options.
Counselling, therapy, groups like AA, all the examples I gave in my first post. Those are very available to other offending types. But for an SO they don’t exist, or would be very expensive, or difficult to navigate because of the stigma.
There’s nothing to make someone not gay, or not straight,or not attracted to children. But there are means of regulating thinking, compulsions, urges, etc.
The barrier is the stigma for treatments.
Pedophiles will always exist. It’s the unfortunate truth. But if we can reduce the amount if children subjected to sexual assault or rape then we should absolutely explore it. That’s what this article is about. Removing the stigma for treatments that you accurately described as a barrier. How successful this approach is remains to be seen. But it’s a worthy and sound discussion to have. And who knows, if it kicks off maybe we can even have people treat it before they actually hurt a child. It’s a big maybe and will not happen for long time but we can try and make steps towards that goal.
There are more extreme methods such as chemical castration, sure. But that has its drawbacks as I mentioned in my comment above.
wait isnt this the common sense approach beyond the “gas them all” conservatives?
Pedophiles are pretty much the most hated group in society. Even serial killers can be chic. I’m confident most of the population leans more towards executions than letting a convicted kiddy diddler anywhere near them. That being said, I’m glad and mildly surprised to see my inbox isn’t full of hate.
I will say that we should either hurry up and gas them, or actually try to integrate them into society. Dealing with it neither way is both cowardly and irrational. And man, can you imagine how much it would suck if you just were naturally attracted to kids and nothing else?
Most pedophiles are not child molesters. Most people who have sexually abused children are not pedophiles. Watch out for unconscious ableism.
Also true. I think what I wrote the first paragraph still stands, though, even if just because most people don’t track that. The second is true for literally every group.
Pedophiles although superproblematic, are surprisingly not the group of people that do the most child molesting. In most cases, the offenders are sexual predators attracted mainly to adults that focus on children because they’re an easier target, not because they are optimally attractive to them. Very often they are people from the child’s family.
Yeah, they actually mention that in the article. And also that the most likely age for a person to abuse a child is 14, basically because they’re new to not being a child themselves.
That kind of brings up another question: should we gas people that target kids just because they can, then? Not that there’s really an effective way to filter out the actual pedophiles from the “pedos of convenience”.
I think there are methods to filter them out - that’s how we know most child molesters are not actual pedos. Personally, I’m against gassing anyone and I’m for the approach suggested in the article.
I’m assuming some kind of anonymity was involved in gathering the statistics. In court the incentives to lie are pretty different.
I think there are ways to psychologically assess an individual, so there’s no need to rely on self reporting.
There are not. Not that I’ve ever heard of, anyway.
There’s genital arousal monitors that have been used historically, but it turns out they’re as good as random chance in practice.
Molesting a kid is molesting a kid, your motives don’t really change what happened. It is just as wrong regardless if it was out of convenience or premeditated. If you’re willing to molest a child, you are a pedophile.
If you’re willing to molest a child, you are a pedophile.
“It would be ideologically incompatible for me to acknowledge that words have meaning and nuance. I must hate as hard as I can to prove that I don’t diddle children.”
Definitionally no, which we actually covered in some detail already here.
If you want to judge just by actions, that’s fair, and that’s the current approach. You do leave some prevention on the table, though, and you still have the “what to do with them now” problem.
I think both denfitionally and opportunistic child molesters should be treated the same, probably with some kind of sentencing and therapy/rehabilitation. Regardless if it is fetish or not, just the fact they’d touch a kid makes their actions wrong. I also fear if we seperate them too much, normal pedophiles might be able to avoid sentencing/treatment by arguing they were oppourtunistic and vice versa, depending which group is set to face harsher punishments.
Plus, the opportunistic ones may still have some kind of rape/molestation fantasies, which could be treated through similar processes as treating pedophiles.
I just don’t see the value in making hard lines between the two groups when the actions they do are the same and carry the same harm, just the motives are different.
You continue to use “pedophile” as a synonym for “child molester,” which is an ableist slur. It is akin to using “schizophrenic” as a synonym for “axe murderer.” “Normal pedophiles” don’t have to avoid sentencing because they have done nothing wrong, nothing to harm anyone. You protest a hard line difference. The hard line difference is, pedophiles are not typically child molesters, and, at the risk of being tautological, opportunists who molest children are child molesters. If you would stop stigmatizing a psychological term, you would not run into situations where you get into arguments on the internet with people who fundamentally agree with you.
Pedophiles are pretty much the most hated group in society.
Not so. Some of them are lauded and widely admired by the populace as heads of congregations.
I mean, the priesthood is “club med” for pedophiles.
Only as long as they can plausibly deny it.
They just get shuffled along to the next random parish - where any word of their “habits” hasn’t yet reached - by the priesthood long before that becomes a problem.
Thankfully the media has become far less complicit in suppressing knowledge of those abuses. And thanks to the Internet, some reports become widely discoverable even if no charges result.
As to people who have paedophilic desire - rather than those who actually rape children - there wasa very interesting thread I read a while back, on Reddit I think, of “I’m a paedophile, AMA”. Very interesting to see the experience of a couple of people who have that attraction but choose not to molest children by acting on it.
Child sexual abuse is a very serious evil, but regarding attraction to children, I think treatment’s a very appropriate route.
Do people generally need treatment not to rape everyone they are attracted to? I guess I’m special that way. I’m into all sorts of (adult) people and I’ve never had the impulse to rape any of them.
It’s not that weird that pedophiles don’t abuse children. We all manage our sexual feelings.
Aww, your so spethal.
Clearly some people do need treatment to not go and do evil things with their desires. If you can save a person from their own desires, by treating them, isn’t that better than executing them?
But for those who don’t - and I hope… wish that was most people - that desire can still eat away at you and make life unhappy, especially if you don’t have any legitimate way to fulfil your longing for romantic relationship. Treatment, including good, old, counselling (when done right) can help.
And consider a middle ground. The incel who always complains at women because he can’t get a girlfriend. The married woman who flirts with other husbands. The rich businessman who makes his attractive secretaries uncomfortable but never quite abuses them. The paedophile who can’t hang out with their friends who have children without feeling urges and making inappropriate remarks. Are these egregious enough to cut those people off from society? But if you can help them; if they’re willing to be helped; their quality of life and those around them can be improved.
Not sure how your systems work in Canada but within US we are unable to provide social services to the more deserving people.
I don’t see how this position within current socio economic conditions is viable.
Serial pedos gonna need to be disposed of.
The issue is that current regime protects them because they are in position of relative power like catholic clergy, teachers, political whores or just rich…
These people don’t want even get in trouble for their deeds.
Family members get protected by the family a lot of times too lol
So you’re on the “gas them” side, then. One issue there is that it’s against agreed to human rights principles, so we’ll either need to reconsider those, or come up with a consistent way of dismissing them (like we have in warfare). There’s also the slippery slope argument - maybe it’s pedos today, but what about normal killers, and then people who steal from charities and the vulnerable, and eventually just normal people we don’t like.
As for the politics: Lots of them are ordinary or poor. The vast majority, even. Hopefully you’re not on the QAnon thing.
I do understand that laws will get abused against normal people like death penalty was used against blacks in the US. That’s I don’t blind shill gas them but at some point I think parents should be able to kill a pedo and let jury decide
I don’t see any crime;)
Also, there is nothing qnon here… We have sufficient evidence of systematic cover of powerful pedophiles. Low level clowns get prosecuted pretty regularly but even these idiots get protected.
Tell me how this story makes you feel…
I think we can all agree on the problem solution to this shit stain.
But the bigget issue here are disgusting law enforcement who should also suffer similar fate but that’s just like an opinion.
Edit: I am taking from the downvote you are not interested in a discussion on the systematic issue we are actually facing here…
