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.
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.
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.
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.
I didn’t take this as a method of changing sexual preferences. But rather a way to help these people avoid acting on these “urges”.
But yes, I do agree that it really depends on how effective it actually is. It nay be that this is just a case of having a few good examples but will not reflect in a broad real life scenario.
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.