What turns you on?

July 22, 2005 1:09 PM

What turns you on? On September 1, a new [Texas] law will go into effect that aims to better label the most dangerous sex offenders, and the method is unconventional, to say the least... (Link goes to a news article; it's SFW)
posted by tippiedog (72 comments total)

So the government is now controlling your hard on.

Help.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 1:14 PM on July 22, 2005

Add some shock therapy, and we have Clockwork Orange.
posted by brheavy at 1:18 PM on July 22, 2005

It's idiotic not to have a distinction between a person convicted of having sex with a sixteen year-old consenting individual and someone that fondled a six year-old at her day care who got caught before they could really try out their perversions.

PET scanning might work better, though.
posted by docpops at 1:18 PM on July 22, 2005

The state says these new tests will help them weed out the low-risk sex offenders, like the 19-year-old who has sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend, from the pedophile who seeks sexual pleasure from children on the playground.

Ah, such a fine line. Clearly, the only way to differentiate them is to use an erection-o-meter.
posted by 4easypayments at 1:21 PM on July 22, 2005

and what this does is measure the increased blood flow to the penis, which is how men show they're sexually aroused.

Um, not so. Certain medications will cause you to have an unsolicited erection. Just ask me. Oh, and what about a "delayed morning boner"? Usually happens around 11am if I was out drinking the night before. Doesn't mean I'm in love with my cubicle.

I prefer the tried and true method of just looking at someone to determine if they're evil or not. Works all the time.
posted by jsavimbi at 1:22 PM on July 22, 2005

Deviant arousal? In Texas? Man, that's an awful lot of ground to have to cover.
posted by fenriq at 1:23 PM on July 22, 2005

Well not really controlling. Scrutinizing, maybe.

...And after dolphins and horses and the record about picking up "all those chicks" I'm sure they're a little concerned.
posted by Zack_Replica at 1:24 PM on July 22, 2005

*looks at jsavimbi*

Yup, pure evil.
posted by InfidelZombie at 1:24 PM on July 22, 2005

and what this does is measure the increased blood flow to the penis, which is how men show they're sexually aroused.

Clearly this is an accurate testing method.
posted by Specklet at 1:28 PM on July 22, 2005

I noticed that, in spite of all the advanced penis-tracking technology that was mentioned ITA, there was no discussion of possible changes to the actual system that led to this situation in the first place.
posted by voltairemodern at 1:28 PM on July 22, 2005

As if they're not dehumanized enough already...
posted by Moral Animal at 1:30 PM on July 22, 2005

I'd be entertained if the people who administered the tests also had to submit to them. Turnaround is fair play and all.
posted by Bugbread at 1:30 PM on July 22, 2005

Here's what burns me re convicted sex offender laws...

I'm about as far as you can get from a lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key kind of guy, but isn't one of the supposed purposes of prison to keep dangerous people out of society?

If we're so convinced that many convicted sex offenders cannot control their urges and are, therefore, dangerous to the population, why are we releasing them at all?
posted by tippiedog at 1:31 PM on July 22, 2005

Sounds like the "Fruit Machine."
posted by PlusDistance at 1:34 PM on July 22, 2005

Tippiedog - I couldn't agree more...
posted by Moral Animal at 1:36 PM on July 22, 2005

Can they not just dunk them in the pond and see if they float or not?
posted by phirleh at 1:37 PM on July 22, 2005

"They're seeing adults and children, all the way from infants up, and they're provocatively dressed," Siegel said.I dunno...I'm all for keeping the pedophiles away, but this just seems to skew the results somehow.
posted by Thorzdad at 1:39 PM on July 22, 2005

PlusDistance, thanks for the link to the wikipedia entry. From there, I found links to lots of other related articles. I guess my local reporter couldn't spell 'Penile Plethysmography' when s/he wrote the article in the FPP.

Here's a summary of an interesting research paper titled "Can we identify the sexual predator by use of penile plethysmography?"
posted by tippiedog at 1:42 PM on July 22, 2005

Seems like a hell of a lot of trouble to go through for a stupid cock ring.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 1:45 PM on July 22, 2005

Preliminary tests will show that I should be nowhere near an apple pie. So much for science!
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 1:47 PM on July 22, 2005

Call me crazy, but couldn't you separate the statutory rape types from the child-molesting types by, you know, checking their record to see what they were convicted of?
posted by designbot at 1:49 PM on July 22, 2005

Call me crazy, but couldn't you separate the statutory rape types from the child-molesting types by, you know, checking their record to see what they were convicted of?

The one problem with that is you'd have to not only wait for them to rape kids, but then have to see them rape kids violently, whereas this takes care of finding all that out without having them do everything they want to do.
posted by Moral Animal at 1:55 PM on July 22, 2005

What if one of these low-risk sex offenders (like the 19-year-old who has sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend) actually *is* somewhat aroused by images of provocatively dressed young children, but would never act on those urges? Would he be classified as a dangerous pedophile even though he has never engaged in pedophilia, and likely never would?
posted by rocket88 at 1:57 PM on July 22, 2005

Note that the site apparently breaks the Back button in Safari.
posted by odinsdream at 1:57 PM on July 22, 2005

What if one of these low-risk sex offenders (like the 19-year-old who has sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend) actually *is* somewhat aroused by images of provocatively dressed young children, but would never act on those urges? Would he be classified as a dangerous pedophile even though he has never engaged in pedophilia, and likely never would?

I'd hope they'd wait to have some other supporting data, like talking to a shrink or something or suspicious behaviour around kids, before anything happens.


Note that the site apparently breaks the Back button in Safari.

You draw your own conclusions from that one.
posted by Moral Animal at 2:01 PM on July 22, 2005

What would happen if someone was turned on by cockrings and scientists?
posted by elwoodwiles at 2:01 PM on July 22, 2005

Is he aroused to force?

It'll be interesting to see where that one goes. Worst case, a lot of harmless, upstanding kinky people get their lives ruined. Best case, some truly damaged people get psychicatric treatment.

Most likely it'll come down somewhere in between, but either way this whole thing makes me nervous. I'd sure hate to have the government that far up in my pants.
posted by nebulawindphone at 2:04 PM on July 22, 2005

(Psychiatric, even.)
posted by nebulawindphone at 2:05 PM on July 22, 2005

Ohhh... c'mon... gimme a break... I'm no pedophile, but I will freely admit that if you showed me a pic of a provocatively dressed 16 year old girl (like in a cheerleader outfit) I might experience some "blood flow" issues.... jeez louise...
posted by Debaser626 at 2:06 PM on July 22, 2005

The one problem with that is you'd have to not only wait for them to rape kids, but then have to see them rape kids violently, whereas this takes care of finding all that out without having them do everything they want to do.

Just like in Minority Report. Having an erection isn't a crime - and is nobody elses business - whatever you are looking at.
posted by fire&wings at 2:09 PM on July 22, 2005

Is this "aroused to force" common usage in that area? I don't think I've ever heard or read someone use "to" in place of "by".
What would we call a scientist fetish, anyway?
posted by hototogisu at 2:12 PM on July 22, 2005

Remove the government from the equation, throw in a nice variety of legal-age lady pics, and this could be kinda cool. I mean, I, for one, would love to finally put my finger on what my exact "type" is.

Wait, that sounded bad...
posted by LordSludge at 2:16 PM on July 22, 2005

I can't believe this. Everytime sex offender notifications come up here, there is a great hew and cry based on how it's indiscriminate and dosen't differentiate against some 18 year old kid with his 16 year old girlfriend from a serial rapist, and just stigmatizes them and so on and so forth. These are all arguments I agree with, but when a state tries a new method in order to be a bit more exacting and prevent such things, a bunch of people freak out and act like this is some horrible crime against human dignity. That the state is now "...controlling your erections..." and that it should be administred to those who perform the tests as "Turnabout is fair play..." and it's equivliant to witch-testing. Oh noes! Parole boards are inhumane and fascist! Prison psychologists should have their evil tests turned on them, after all its, only fair!

There may be problems with the testing used, as the paper tippiedog linked to contends, and it's quite possible that this test is inaccurate and will produce false positives and negatives, but a lot of you sound like the very idea is either clearly absurd or some affront to human rights everywhere. What, exactly, is the big deal? This isn't about sentenceing, or the trial, but probation, and trying to figure out a better method than a one-size fits all probation scheme, and it recognizes, in at least some capacity, that some sex offenders are directly harmful and dangerous, and some are not.
posted by Snyder at 2:19 PM on July 22, 2005

So, do they pipe in a little of the Ludwig Van while they're at it?
posted by sellout at 2:28 PM on July 22, 2005

F&W:
Just like in Minority Report. Having an erection isn't a crime - and is nobody elses business - whatever you are looking at.

From the article:
The idea is to separate low-risk offenders from violent sexual predators.

Minority Report: Conviction and punishment.

This is just for classification purposes. Instead of treating them all like the worst offenders by default, they're able to classify them and treat them more along the lines of how they should be treated.

(NB: I'm just playing devil's advocate - look at my earlier posts for my true feelings on this article.)
posted by Moral Animal at 2:29 PM on July 22, 2005

"This test is part of a new assessment the state is trying out on sex offenders going on probation. The idea is to separate low-risk offenders from violent sexual predators.

Separate them where? To different sections of the city once they're paroled? Because most of the will be paroled. This is a ridiculous waste of time and effort. Once they are out, they're out man. Maybe the answer is putting them away longer because putting them anywhere but where they want to go - once they are out among us - is offensive and mean-spirited (cough).

"If we're so convinced that many convicted sex offenders cannot control their urges and are, therefore, dangerous to the population, why are we releasing them at all?"

Well we have to make room for all of the lifers doing time for selling a half ounce of coke. Get your friggin priorities straight already...geez.
posted by j.p. Hung at 2:30 PM on July 22, 2005

Why can't we just adjust probation schemes to the type of sex offense? Is this done already? Why would it be so hard to make the laws easier on an 18 year old kid having sex with his underage girlfriend, compared to a 30 year old molesting 10 year olds?
posted by hototogisu at 2:31 PM on July 22, 2005

On preview... this bill only concerns convicted sexual offenders... So their prediliction for one type or another is moot. They've proved (beyond a resonable doubt, anyway) that they have deviant urges and will ACT upon them. Which does separate them from the rest of society. Sure, I get random id-like urges to trip a stranger down a flight of stairs who is struggling with a heavy package, but the difference between a psycho and just an asshole (like me), is that I don't act on those urges, I just move along. This seems to me like more knee-jerk, overkill bullshit to placate the public. I don't think Sally McJones and her two daughters are going to feel any more comfortable living next door to someone who only likes to kidnap, rape, and force himself on little boys, than if said offender had a tendency towards girls. Likewise, Mr. Jones and his two young daughers aren't going to be too pleased about the offender who only rapes full grown women. Doesn't matter to what they did, but that they commited a crime of that type. These folk will be shunned by society for the rest of their lives, and hopefully will seek and receive help, whether it be medication or therapy. Unfortunately, too many deviants are irreperable. Short of medication that completely stunts their sexual drive, or castration, they will forever live with the unnatural urge to commit such acts... It's a damn shame, because I believe that 90% of people don't start out this way. They were victims of horrible abuse, sexual assault, and emotional torture as kids themselves.

I also sincerely doubt that there will ever be a "open" test to non convicted felons. Just think how many politicians, community figures, celebrities, CEOs, and so on, would end up failing this test. Everyone's got a FEW dirty kinks they don't want broadcast to the world....
posted by Debaser626 at 2:33 PM on July 22, 2005

You guys missed the key statement in the article: All sex offenders going on probation will take them and will be required to pay for them.

"How much will this test cost me?"
"A dollar more than you have. Can't pay? OK, take him back and lock him up until next year."
posted by joaquim at 2:38 PM on July 22, 2005

tippiedog sez:
If we're so convinced that many convicted sex offenders cannot control their urges and are, therefore, dangerous to the population, why are we releasing them at all?

Come to Washington state, where sometimes they are kept at the Special Committment Center of McNeil Island Corrections Center even after their prison sentence is completed. One guy sued to get out and the supreme court said the state could keep him there. The Stranger has reported on this in the past as well.
posted by doorsnake at 2:42 PM on July 22, 2005

Thinking of baseball statistics and Transcendental Meditation with eyes open not allowed.
posted by caddis at 2:48 PM on July 22, 2005

. . . nor is saltpeter.
posted by caddis at 2:50 PM on July 22, 2005

hototogisu : "Is this 'aroused to force' common usage in that area?"

It's not a common Texanism. If it's a common legal expression is another question (like the use pretty much exclusively by police of the expression "high rate of speed" instead of "high speed")

Snyder : "that it should be administred to those who perform the tests as 'Turnabout is fair play...'...Prison psychologists should have their evil tests turned on them, after all its, only fair!"

I wasn't implying that it was evil or wrong, I just suspect that there are folks out there aroused by 16 year old cheerleaders, who aren't classical pedophiles, and that it would be pretty educational and perspective supplying if the folks who administered the test also took the test. I mean, the test isn't a punishment, there's no particular reason that having the test administrators take the test themselves would be somehow horrible or mean. And the only way you would conclude that the "turnabout is fair play" comment is somehow saying "prison psychologists should have their evil tests turned on them" is if you think the test is itself evil. I'm the guy who made the initial statement, and I certainly don't think the test is evil, just prone to misuse, and that having a "control group" would make it less prone to potential abuse, and that one of othe optimal control groups would be the test admins.
posted by Bugbread at 2:52 PM on July 22, 2005

I suppose now would be a good time to derail onto a month old Economist (registration req) about how psycopaths are born that way, and that they are being kept in the population by natural selection because psychopathic behaviour confers a selective advantage.

(Don't know if this was a thread or not - MeFi search didn't turn it up.)
posted by Moral Animal at 2:53 PM on July 22, 2005

If you take a look at the Austin Police Department's registry, you'll find 80 sex offenders listed as living in zip code 78753. The problem is that you don't know if it's little children that gets a particular offender sexually aroused but the new pilot program will test that.

My old neighbor across the street who just moved had his brother staying with him for a while, who was a convicted sex offender. His story was that the girl told him that she was 17 (which is legal) but that she turned out to be 16. I was thinking, "Yeah right, buddy, that's what everyone says." But then I went and looked it up, and right there on his profile page, it says the age of the victim, and she was 16. So you can already access the information of how old the victims of past crimes were.

I think it's weird to wait until these guys are getting out on parole to collect this information on these guys, because then what becomes of the info? Put it on the web? Demand higher parole requirements for people who score low on the test? It seems that this kind of thing would be better used like right when the guys go to prison. Take the test, know your numbers, work with a shrink to get the numbers down so that you're not turned on by kids anymore, and then you can apply for early parole or something.
posted by 23skidoo at 3:24 PM on July 22, 2005

IANAL and IANASO (sex offender) and IANAM (man). But it seems to me that if I were man about to be strapped into this machine I would get myself a lawyer and file a suit for sex discrimination.

Yes I'm sure the overwhelming majority of sex offenders are men, but the fact remains that if male sex offenders are required to do something and female sex offenders are not required to do something equivalent, then these men are not being treated equally under the law.

I realize that the US constitution doesn't actually protect against discrimination on the basis of sex, but there have been enough sex discrimination suits out there, that I'm sure something or other must be protecting people even if it's not the constitution.
posted by duck at 3:29 PM on July 22, 2005

Shouldn’t the clasification reflect what they actually did rather than what they might do?
What’s so hard about that?
Goddurn eggheads.
posted by signal at 3:47 PM on July 22, 2005

Just to elaborate, some S. Pinker book (“how the mind works”, maybe?) said something to the effect that for every Charles Manson, there where on the order of a hundred other people with the same psyche profile, who never acted on their tendencies.
So if you went to jail for having sex with your 16-year old gf when you where 18, I don’t think that your “classification” should show that you get aroused by underage gerbils or whatever.
posted by signal at 3:49 PM on July 22, 2005

bugbread has good point. Unless these tests are done on non-offenders on a large scale, we have no idea it is is actually unusual to be arroused by these images. There's shockingly little data on this subject.

signal: when people assess an offender's ability to reenter the community, they are looking at potential risk. Clearly this does go beyond simply what someone has done, and has to include what they might do. Any kind of rehabilitation or therapy relies on that knowledge.
posted by Doug at 3:58 PM on July 22, 2005

Unless these tests are done on non-offenders on a large scale, we have no idea it is is actually unusual to be aroused by these images.

And if these non-offenders show deviancy? How is that to be handled? A preemptive sexual predator leaning database accessible via the internet?
posted by caddis at 4:05 PM on July 22, 2005

caddis : "And if these non-offenders show deviancy? How is that to be handled?"

Presumably, it would be used to determine the standard margin of error, and degree of practicality of the test.
posted by Bugbread at 4:11 PM on July 22, 2005

caddis: I would think that it would show that the correlation between arousal and offense is weak, and that so much emphasis shouldn't be place on PPG tests.
posted by Doug at 4:50 PM on July 22, 2005

"They're seeing adults and children, all the way from infants up, and they're provocatively dressed," Siegel said.

I'm still pondering this one--how does an infant dress provocatively?
posted by leftcoastbob at 5:52 PM on July 22, 2005

signal has it ... look at what they did, not some "60% accurate" mumbo jumbo with a cock ring
posted by pyramid termite at 6:40 PM on July 22, 2005

Sorry to disappoint the "scientists", but if I see something that's up my alley at work or pretty much anyplace in public, I will not automatically get wood. Maybe when I was 17, but then when I was 17 I got wood randomly. This arousal detection system is bogus. And, as others have suggested, would at least require a very large control sample. Not that I wouldn't be interested in seeing the collective outcome of a large swath of the American public. I bet those results would surprise and enlighten.
posted by squirrel at 7:43 PM on July 22, 2005

The article says the offenders will be shown pictures of "provacatively dressed" children. Will the children pictured be notified that the government is using their pictures for the purpose of attempting to induce an erection in a known sex offender?
posted by punishinglemur at 11:02 PM on July 22, 2005

Also: When I read this...

On September 1, a new law will go into effect that aims to better label the most dangerous sex offenders, and the method is unconventional, to say the least.

If you take a look at the Austin Police Department's registry, you'll find 80 sex offenders listed as living in zip code 78753.

...I thought the article was going to go on to say that the offenders were all going to be placed in a secure area, zip code 78753, and allowed to live out the rest of their lives in nature, away from innocent humans.
posted by punishinglemur at 11:10 PM on July 22, 2005

If they show pictures of kids provocatively dressed, they are in violation of kiddie porn laws. IIRC, that definition was any image of a minor with the intent of causing arousal. ('prurient interest', is the term I seem to recall).

Its an interesting concept, but it does amount to the government treating people differently according to what they think.

Interesting issue I see, is what about those that are aroused by some of these images, because they are bdsm-bottom? It happens that some come out of prison with an acquired masochism. Or an infantilist would likely be aroused by an image of a child in some situations, out of a desire to BE that child (projecting themselves into the image, just as with bdsm bottoms).
posted by Goofyy at 11:30 PM on July 22, 2005

Dr. Richard Green, a psychiatrist at the Imperial College School of Medicine in London and professor emeritus of psychiatry at U.C.L.A., wrote two years ago in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior about a 1989 study: the psychologists John Briere and Marsha Runtz found that 'in a sample of nearly 200 university males, 21 percent reported some sexual attraction to small children.' Specifically, '9 percent described sexual fantasies involving children, 5 percent admitted to having masturbated to sexual fantasies of children and 7 percent indicated they might have sex with a child if not caught. Briere and Runtz remarked that 'given the probable social undesirability of such admissions, we may hypothesize that the actual rates were even higher.'' Green wrote as well of the work done in 1970 by the researchers Kurt Freund and R. Costell. Forty-eight Czech soldiers were hooked to a 'penile responsivity' meter known as a plethysmograph. Viewing a series of slides, '28 of 48 showed penile response to the female children age 4-10.'

— The Making of a Molester The New York Times January 23, 2005
posted by rafter at 11:34 PM on July 22, 2005

Real Horrorshow
posted by jeffburdges at 11:35 PM on July 22, 2005

How delightful. Of all the zip codes they could have picked, they picked mine.
posted by Orb at 12:32 AM on July 23, 2005

Careful what you reveal about yourself through your zip there, Humbert. ;^)
posted by squirrel at 2:04 AM on July 23, 2005

"If you take a look at the Austin Police Department's registry, you'll find 80 sex offenders listed as living in zip code 78753."

I would be amused to find out that zip code 78753 is where the prison is located. Would make great copy. "There are also 75 murderers, 12 arsonists, 40 drug dealers, 12 extortionists, and 120 thiefs listed as living in zip code 78753"
posted by Bugbread at 6:55 AM on July 23, 2005

and that it would be pretty educational and perspective supplying if the folks who administered the test also took the test.

I would think it would be a job requirement: don't they need to know going in that the scientist administering the test isn't a closeted paedophile who may jigger the results for others in his club? You know, like how the free masons do with parking tickets.

"Oh no Jim here doesn't like it young and hairless. Says so on my science chart. Off you go. See you at 'The Lodge'."
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 8:35 AM on July 23, 2005

Blargh. A lot of you are missing a major implication here: it is not illegal to be attracted to anything -- not shoes, dogs, cadillacs -- or children. So they can start trying to regulate desire or they can start talking about the difference between impulse and action -- because poor impulse control is probably what we're talking about here -- or SHOULD be talking about here -- it's myriad forms, and how to deal with it.
posted by dreamsign at 12:03 PM on July 23, 2005

Dreamsign: True, but I think here the discussion is more about risk assessment than punishment. In the same way, bail is set or not set, not based purely on the crime carried out, but on the risk of flight of the person arrested. What we're looking at here is not (ok, I take that back, it "should not", but somehow I have a feeling they'll fuck it up and start treating attraction not as a risk factor but as a crime itself) punishment based on attraction, but risk evaluation based on attraction.
posted by Bugbread at 12:29 PM on July 23, 2005

It is about risk assessment, true, but:

i) the responses in this thread (and every other MeFi thread about the big P) demonstrate how easily and nearly uniformly behaviour and desire -- at least when it comes to this subgroup -- is equated, and

ii) neither prison nor therapy are going to make these people attracted to something else, so this is not an indicator of risk. of course, if you don't carefully examine your assumptions, this can get lost in the shuffle. this should be about impulse control, not what your impulses are. natch, people aren't going to like that much because it's morally neutral about it.
posted by dreamsign at 12:54 PM on July 23, 2005

(er..."big P"? Paraphilia? Penis? Pedophilia? Penal system? (ok, probably not penal system))

But, yes, I agree. My disagreement wasn't about whether it was a good idea or not, just disagreement with your focus on this in relation to illegality or punishment.
posted by Bugbread at 1:43 PM on July 23, 2005

If I were given the opportunity to attack this idea in court, I'd have to start from the obvious -- this unfairly imposes a requirement against male offenders that is not imposed upon female offenders. Unless, of course, there's a clitoral plethysmograph device that I'm unaware of?
posted by Dreama at 4:34 PM on July 23, 2005

bugbread, I misunderstood what you were trying to say, and grouped you in with some of the other hysteric posters. Sorry about that. You make a good point.
posted by Snyder at 9:30 PM on July 23, 2005

And yeah, one of my first impressions was that this was discriminatory agianst woman, (ie, if it can lessen restrinctions on parole for some men, in order to put an end to a one size fits all parole scheme, and if women are not able to take advantage of it, it's discriminatory.)
posted by Snyder at 9:34 PM on July 23, 2005

May as well test whether alcoholics-on-the-wagon are still "attracted" to alcohol. Meaningless.
posted by dreamsign at 1:40 PM on July 24, 2005