Why some MAPs are treatment skeptical

A place to discuss academic and legal research and other high-quality media.
Post Reply
User avatar
Fragment
Posts: 714
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2024 12:08 pm

Why some MAPs are treatment skeptical

Post by Fragment »

In 1979–80, contributors to the pedophile liberation magazine Pan corresponded with the prominent sexologist Dr. John Money of the Johns Hopkins medical school about the ethics of chemical castration. Money had recently recommended to the Maine legislature that, rather than cutting off the nerve supplies from the penises of pedophiles, they should be treated with sex-repressive drugs instead. “Face the facts,” Money wrote to Pan. “Pedophilia is not currently acceptable in most legal jurisdictions of the US and Europe. . . . I think you would be well advised to learn how to join forces with your natural allies in science and medicine in this less than perfect world.” “With friends like that, who needs enemies?” quipped an anonymous writer for the magazine.
"Here, let me help you by destroying you." Not all therapists are like that. But many with a "harm prevention" focus are.
Communications Officer: Mu. Exclusive hebephile BL.

"Everywhere I see bliss, from which I alone am irrevocably excluded. I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend. Make me happy, and I shall again be virtuous."
~Frankenstein
Post Reply