Testicles and Brain

upstairs for coffee

I was watching a Louis Theroux documentary - "A place for pedophiles" (One which I would highly recommend) - and in it he was interviewing this particular pedophile.

This pedophile let it be known during the course of the interview that he had been castrated and was insinuating that because of the castration and soul searching he had done, he was no longer a threat to society.

My question is, and I'm trying to word this in a way that won't be perceived as illogical, but are the brain and testicles linked? By that I mean, surely having a castration won't stop the pedophile from having thoughts about children?

Sorry if this is the wrong forum.

chughes

Castration probably won't stop the thoughts but it prevents an active follow on situation.

upstairs for coffee

chughes wrote: »

Castration probably won't stop the thoughts but it prevents an active follow on situation.

But does it? From what I've read pedophiles get a great deal of mental satisfaction from what they do, as well as physical satisfaction for themselves.

JuliusCaesar

Google Scholar brings up a good few articles:

Weinberger et al 2005

The relationship of surgical castration to sexual recidivism in a sexually violent predator/sexually dangerous person (SVP/SDP) population is reviewed. A review of the literature on castrated sex offenders reveals a very low incidence of sexual recidivism. The low sexual recidivism rates reported are critiqued in light of the methodologic limitations of the studies. Better designed testicular/prostate cancer studies have demonstrated that, while sexual desire is reduced by orchidectomy, the capacity to develop an erection in response to sexually stimulating material is not eliminated. The relevance of this literature to SVP/SDP commitment decisions and ethics is discussed. Two vignettes of castrated, high‐risk sex offenders illustrate how to address risk reduction. Two tables are presented: the first outlines individual case data from a difficult‐to‐obtain report, and the second summarizes the most frequently cited castration studies on sexual recidivism. Orchiectomy may have a role in risk assessments; however, other variables should be considered, particularly as the effects can be reversed by replacement testosterone.

Krassner et al 2005

HISTORY: REPEAT OFFENDER

Mr. V, age 68, was incarcerated for 13 years for two separate pedophilia convictions. During that time, he passed numerous rehabilitative courses. With several years left on his sentence, he was paroled on condition that he undergo a bilateral orchiectomy.

Eight months later, Mr. V complained to his primary care physician that he could not have sex with his girlfriend, even after taking 50 mg of sildenafil, which he had obtained from a friend. He requested testosterone injections to allow him to have intercourse. After consulting an endocrinologist, the physician ordered Mr. V to undergo a psychiatric assessment before receiving testosterone. He was referred to our outpatient clinic.

During our evaluation, Mr. V described both pedophilia incidents. In the first, he had fondled a 14-year-old girl who was a friend of his family. He pled guilty to a charge of inappropriate sexual contact with a minor and was sentenced to 3 years in a state prison for sex offenders.

Less than 2 years after he was paroled, Mr. V said, he fondled his 12-year-old granddaughter. He said his daughter “should have known better” than to leave him home alone with the child. Again he was convicted of illegal sexual relations with a minor and sentenced to 10 years at the state hospital for the criminally insane.

As Mr. V describes his past offenses, we begin feeling tremendously uneasy. Although forthcoming, he blandly denies responsibility for either incident. He acknowledges that society views his actions as wrong, but he never indicates that he believes them to be wrong. At times he tries to normalize his behavior, saying “What man would have acted differently?”

Mr. V is polite and appropriate and promises to abide by our recommendation, yet he sees no reason for us to deny his request and no connection between his criminal record and the nature of his crimes or the terms of his parole. His denial and lack of insight are typical of convicted pedophiles

Orchiectomy/Orchidectomy = castration (removal of the testes)

bigmark39

I think pedophiles are just plain evil and they get a kick from that as much as anything else. Castration doesn't address this.

I think both the question and some of the responses showers that despite vast amounts of research we do not know every thing about human sexuality. The point from the research about accepting responsibility for your actions and being able to accepting legal and societal norms about sexual behaviour is important, if you can not accept that you have done any wrong then no amount of castration is going to change your behaviour.

I think a more important question is why some people fail to developer empathy and fail to developer any feelings of remorse about the behaviour.

Odysseus

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

I was watching a Louis Theroux documentary - "A place for pedophiles" (One which I would highly recommend) - and in it he was interviewing this particular pedophile.

This pedophile let it be known during the course of the interview that he had been castrated and was insinuating that because of the castration and soul searching he had done, he was no longer a threat to society.

My question is, and I'm trying to word this in a way that won't be perceived as illogical, but are the brain and testicles linked? By that I mean, surely having a castration won't stop the pedophile from having thoughts about children?

Sorry if this is the wrong forum.

Are we looking to stop a person from having such thoughts? That is the first question that arises for me; from a legal view pint there is nothing wrong with having such thoughts, it what a person does with such thoughts that becomes a problem.

As far as I such a procedure will only stop a person from engaging in the sexual act, that does not mean that other forms of abuse cannot occur or that an instrument could may be used.

Having the thoughts does not mean a person will act on them; but equally it does not mean a person will not act on them; or will only go as far as fantasying about the act.

Interesting question

JuliusCaesar

TL;DR - the relevant bits for those who didn't read the original quotes:

while sexual desire is reduced by orchidectomy, the capacity to develop an erection in response to sexually stimulating material is not eliminated.

Orchiectomy may have a role........ the effects can be reversed by replacement testosterone.

And as Odysseus points out, other forms of abuse are still possible other than penetrative sex.

upstairs for coffee

Odysseus wrote: »

Are we looking to stop a person from having such thoughts? That is the first question that arises for me; from a legal view pint there is nothing wrong with having such thoughts, it what a person does with such thoughts that becomes a problem.

As far as I such a procedure will only stop a person from engaging in the sexual act, that does not mean that other forms of abuse cannot occur or that an instrument could may be used.

Having the thoughts does not mean a person will act on them; but equally it does not mean a person will not act on them; or will only go as far as fantasying about the act.

Interesting question

Of course we can't stop or govern peoples thoughts, desires etc. But then that leads me onto the question of what the psychologist is for in this particular case? Is it the psychologists job to try and reason with the pedophile or is it to try and "fix" the pedophile?

Theroux said that it costs 200,000 grand a year to incarcerate each individual pedophile. That is a vast sum of money, and I know it all of it isn't purely for the psychologists budget, but what is the point in having the psychologists deal with them if they will still desire children?

Cheers for those links too Caesar, very interesting.

upstairs for coffee

Sorry, I am coming across very naively in my previous post, sounds as if I am asking why can't psychiatrists cure them.

I guess what I am trying to ask is what is the purpose of a psychologist dealing with a pedophile in this instance?

Odysseus

Odysseus wrote: »

Are we looking to stop a person from having such thoughts? That is the first question that arises for me; from a legal view pint there is nothing wrong with having such thoughts, it what a person does with such thoughts that becomes a problem.

As far as I such a procedure will only stop a person from engaging in the sexual act, that does not mean that other forms of abuse cannot occur or that an instrument could may be used.

Having the thoughts does not mean a person will act on them; but equally it does not mean a person will not act on them; or will only go as far as fantasying about the act.

Interesting question

In a way does that matter because we don't have the though police, its only if the paedophile acts on their fantasies and thought that it becomes an issue for society.

Odysseus

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

Sorry, I am coming across very naively in my previous post, sounds as if I am asking why can't psychiatrists cure them.

I guess what I am trying to ask is what is the purpose of a psychologist dealing with a pedophile in this instance?

I think that depends both on ones own psychotherapeutic position and the position of an organisation if you are working for one.

Say for example a person in private practice may have similar but at the same time different objectives to someone working in an organisation with a court mandated client.

Even in my own limited experience of working with people who have abused, I personally would find that a difficult question to answer.

I'll try have a think on it, and put some type of post together but I would be interested in hearing others opinions etc.

the_syco

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

I guess what I am trying to ask is what is the purpose of a psychologist dealing with a pedophile in this instance?

I see it as someone trying to look as if they can "fix" and/or "cure" the mind of the paedophile. It seems some view it as a sickness that can be cured and if they find the reason behind why they are paedophile, they can cure the paedophiles desires.

IMO, I view paedophile as a form of sexuality; something that cannot be cured, as although it is sick, is not a sickness, in regards, IMO, something that can be cured.

You'd need to chop of their arms, theirs balls, their eyes, and their tongue, their ears and... well, you get the drift. Just because they can't rape the child, it doesn't mean they cannot mentally harm the child by molesting the child if castrated.

Example; IMO, if someone molests when horny, and they get their balls snipped, I can't see them molesting as they most be getting horny.

Example2; someone molests to get a horn. I can't see castration having any effect, as they don't need to be horny to molest.

Thus, IMO, you'd need to know why they molest (cos of the horn as opposed to get a horn), etc, to see how much of a danger they'd be after their sentence, and thus a psychologist would be needed to evaluate them, to see if they'd reoffend.

But you'd need to define "reoffend"; they'll still think like before, would they may not act on the desire?