Prevent It, an experimental online therapy program for people who are struggling with illegal content, is now accepting registrations for their second phase. The program is entirely online and anonymous over Tor, so there’s no mandatory reporting requirement since they don’t have any information about participants to report.
Full disclosure: I have some issues with past research performed by the group behind it because they seemed to be using stigma to manipulate non-offending MAPs into taking unnecessary medication to reduce sex drive, but I’ve heard only good things about this program so far. As always, do your research and stay on the lookout for potentially harmful approaches to treatment.
Edit: this now appears on our Get Help page
Lol at the edit to “taking unnecessary medication to reduce sex drive” from “getting unnecessary chemical castrations”. Pretty sure that’s what chemical castration is, just taking meds. No reason for the edit, it was right in the first place. Am I missing something?
I think you’re right, I just wanted to match the language of the study so it doesn’t seem like I’m trying to influence opinions by misrepresenting their goals
Sounds to me like the study should just come out and say what they want, which is chemical castrations. They’re the ones dodging controversial, icky-sounding terms.
Idk if castration implies something more complete/permanent than just reducing libido, so I wouldn’t be able to say for sure if you’re right. Most of my knowledge on stuff like that comes from others who spend more time looking into eugenics/genocide/similar society-wide attacks on marginalized groups
Ah, ok. From my understanding, chemical castration means just taking meds. The effects are generally reversible by just stopping. So not at all like actually butchering peoples’ privates. Now, wether or not chemical castration still counts as cruel, unusual, and dehumanizing is a matter of debate, but regardless greatly preferential to being emasculated.
What are those numbers next to the links?
They refer to the number of users that have clicked on the links.
For example, if there is a 3, then that means that three users have clicked on the link.
However, I’ve found that the number can go up even without signing in. This means that even non-registered users can make the number go up as well.
Does it keep track of who clicked it?
As far as I know, no, only the number of users who click the link.
I don’t think so. If you want to copy paste it instead, here:
Good, otherwise it would defeat the purpose of anonymity.
Also worth noting, even if it did keep track of people, there’s no way to determine who was curious and who was actually interested in participating in the study, so it wouldn’t be useful information for anyone hoping to find people in the later group.
Imagine taking a therapy program serious when all you can think of is:
“These guys would put me in jail and label me as an abuser for a drawing”.
How is anyone ever going to built genuine trust with any therapist if this is the reality in a lot of places.
That’s the benefit of no mandatory reporting requirements. Though, I would be interested to hear the researchers’ thoughts on fictional content. That could be an issue if they’re telling participants it’s just as bad and trying to get them to drop a healthy outlet.
If they’re recommending chemical castration as a solution, then I’m extremely skeptical of this group. The benefits of chemical castration are vastly outweighed by the long-term harm it causes to the body, in addition to the fact that, should a dosage be missed, it risks elevated escalation of risk.
We shouldn’t be treating pedophilia like it’s a disease or something that needs correcting. Pedophilia and pedophilic disorder are not the same condition, and PD can remit with proper treatment, namely in the form of CBT and community-based affirmation (for correcting cognitive distortions and offense-supportive cognitions and beliefs), but denying them something to integral to their well-being is NOT a healthy of viable long-term prevention technique.
Please be careful about this.
Yeah, the only reason I’m okay with it is that they don’t have physical access to participants or know their identities, so they couldn’t prescribe any sort of drugs even if they wanted to.
If they’re recommending chemical castration as a solution,
Good thing no one is suggesting that. Mostly I see recommendations of testing drugs to reduce sex urges, not eliminate them entirely. It’s a controversial decision, but in Romania they’ve been testing them on pedos with lower dosages to avoid the long term harms.
…that’s literally chemical castration. The goal of chemcast is NOT elimination, it’s reduction. So yes, they ARE recommending chemcast.
no its not. castration is surgical removal or testicals