It’s a tough question to even approach an answer to, because, for one, there are people who moralise the issue and say pedos shouldn’t have anything that might make them happy, regardless of whether it would reduce their likelihood of victimizing real children, (the same attitude saying drug addicts are degenerate scum) and less stupidly, the only way to tell what the effect of such a thing would be, would be to do it and see what happens. Then it’s the same problem with any other human experiment. If it led to a decrease in child rape, you’d see some academic writing on it but you would still get a lot of people hemming and hawing about the moral hazard. If it led to an increase, whoever made the decision to give the go ahead on it would be arguably morally culpable for all those extra kids being harmed. Not a lot of people funding grant proposals are looking to risk being put into the bad part of the history book to, just maybe, be labeled ‘the one who helped the most hated class of the mentally ill.’ (If anyone wants to argue the paedophiles aren’t mentally ill, I’d have to question how their definition of mental health includes rape, but I digress.)
Personally, I’d like to do away with the hate and get them all into some form of treatment, whatever that might mean. (I’m not a psychiatrist.) While they hide, they are more likely to be a danger to others. If visible, they could be researched, maybe treated or screened against, but we’ll never know while they are hidden, and it seems better to reduce the hate, usually a good thing to do in any case, and get them to come forward, than to surveil the whole of society as though we’re all criminals, or sit on our hands and pretend everything is going well, as is, when the President of the US, a member of the royal family, and dozens of other powerful people are dodging questions regarding possible involvement with a child sex trafficker.
Sunsofold@lemmings.world 5 weeks ago
It’s a tough question to even approach an answer to, because, for one, there are people who moralise the issue and say pedos shouldn’t have anything that might make them happy, regardless of whether it would reduce their likelihood of victimizing real children, (the same attitude saying drug addicts are degenerate scum) and less stupidly, the only way to tell what the effect of such a thing would be, would be to do it and see what happens. Then it’s the same problem with any other human experiment. If it led to a decrease in child rape, you’d see some academic writing on it but you would still get a lot of people hemming and hawing about the moral hazard. If it led to an increase, whoever made the decision to give the go ahead on it would be arguably morally culpable for all those extra kids being harmed. Not a lot of people funding grant proposals are looking to risk being put into the bad part of the history book to, just maybe, be labeled ‘the one who helped the most hated class of the mentally ill.’ (If anyone wants to argue the paedophiles aren’t mentally ill, I’d have to question how their definition of mental health includes rape, but I digress.)
Personally, I’d like to do away with the hate and get them all into some form of treatment, whatever that might mean. (I’m not a psychiatrist.) While they hide, they are more likely to be a danger to others. If visible, they could be researched, maybe treated or screened against, but we’ll never know while they are hidden, and it seems better to reduce the hate, usually a good thing to do in any case, and get them to come forward, than to surveil the whole of society as though we’re all criminals, or sit on our hands and pretend everything is going well, as is, when the President of the US, a member of the royal family, and dozens of other powerful people are dodging questions regarding possible involvement with a child sex trafficker.