Sexual Offender As Label Versus the Zealotry of the Self-Righteous

Sexuality and eroticism has always been “offensive” to somebody. Especially is this so in this land of the blue-nose, which descended here from a long Christian paranoia of anything erotic and unclean. But where is this psychology of “erotophobia” mentioned in California’s latest crusade against anything that falls under the rubric of “sexual offender?”

To feel offended is very much a subjective notion. Yet, somehow the attitude goes, everyone, that is everyone thought to be a “good” citizen of the state of California, ought be able to live in some Utopian world in which “no one” feels offended—especially sexually—and this idealism should reside no matter how arbitrary and contradictory the propensity to feel offended seems.

Notwithstanding obviously vicious and heinous crimes, there are many more sexual acts or transgressions that are far from vicious and heinous. But do to America’s extremism and Puritanism, including feminist, secular Puritanism, one to often sees what one’s personality wants to see. Remember how embarrassing it was that the mainstream media blew up the Jackson nipple-gate affair and the rest of the world was more taken aback about how hung-up Americans are on trivial matters—after all trivial things affect trivial minds.

And never mind the fact that some people have great capacity to find things to feel offended when little is truly provocative. They will sniff through more and more dirty laundry like some kind of fishing trip just to find something—because they can’t feel alive unless they have something to complain and whine about. Nevertheless it is sex itself, or the desire for erotic experience, which is often what really aggravates some souls—especially if that desire is not within the context of monogamy and marriage.

Not to mention that there is an “enormous” amount of prejudice against men that has never been honestly addressed or debated regarding the so-called battle of the sexes—making this prejudice all the more insidious. At least since Gloria Steinem “chose” to dress as a sexual object—that is to play a playboy bunny—men have been hearing epithets like sexist pig, male chauvinist, etc., although with less frequency. But this is no small point however, because even to this very day there are plenty of women who sometimes dress in very tight outfits, such as going to a yoga class, and if a male is, so-called, “staring” at her, or so-called “gawking” at her (men are so untoward!) then it is totally his “male” problem. It has nothing to do with her choice of deliberately dressing as exhibitionist and creating the scene in the first place.

Don’t get me wrong if you think I’m somehow offended by women dressing sexually. I’m not. That is not the point. The point is there is a lot of double standard when it comes to labeling what is considered “perverse” and unacceptable in this society. More importantly there is the slippery slope for some who are all too willing to see any kind of sexual offense as an obvious pattern toward a worst criminality. It is a similar argument that if you smoke marijuana it will obviously lead to worst drug use and crime—never mind alcohol was always a gateway drug (if there is such one). But apparently there exist some predictive wisdom to assume “evil” sexual propensity can go to more extreme pattern? Yet few do-gooders even recognize our own sexual hang-ups or desire to humiliate others—even if they can not do it physically.

Where, for example, is all the awareness building that some social scientists have found a strong correlation between episodes of humiliation and retaliatory violence—that if society is so concerned about sexual violence? Yet violence after episodes of feeling humiliated happens all the time. Take Israeli treatment of Palestinians. Take America’s military treatment of some Muslims. If you humiliate long enough you’re pretty much guaranteed to find some who want to gain revenge. Yet some peoples’ idea of treating “sexual offenders” is to humiliate them as much as possible with never-ending public exposure and making sure they have no means to a job, livelihood, a place to live, or social life.

These rally calls against sexual predators of late, which is a serious issue that deserves serious consideration and reform for the minority of offenders who truly are vicious, is also a call for some, especially of the evangelical and right-winger populists, as presently opportunity to find a political foothold to find scapegoats, the perverts, and to thus avoid other more complicated political and social issues. There are a lot of issues some people don’t want to address—this has always been a political reality. Now we have an emotional issue to steer tension as condemnation of sexual proclivity as always been part and parcel of a right-wing and totalitarian agenda.

But today people are upset with the status quo and they want change—but it is almost always change that effects others and for the short-term benefit. Well since homosexuals are no longer an easy mark—as they have got organized since homosexuality motivated the rise of the moral majority in the first place—now the emphasis will be on the sexual “predators” (which doesn’t mean female prostitutes exploiting sexually deprived man for money—especially since feminism had so successfully created a psychology that men are the predators and women are the victims—or you are accused as “blaming” the victim).

Obviously some forms of predation are highly offensive to morality and such propensities should be confronted. Murder and brutal violence is serious danger. But there is a lot of gray between the black and white when it comes to who and what is defining “appropriate” standards of sexual behavior. For example, is it not a form of aggression to put on lipstick and other decorations that highlight sexually provocative hormones? And is it not true men are more susceptible to visual cues of eroticism on average? Yet when some feminists argued against “aggressive” looks (the eyes as violating) they did not equally discuss the choices of provocation such as pantyhose and other feminine attire that calculated to attract certain kinds of hormonal attention.

When people think of sexual offenders they don’t think of women. For the most part their reflex is automatically to see men as culpable and to assume the worst. Why has there never been a fair debate on how much prejudice and paranoia exists over the decades against men in this society? Even before these latest episodes of sexual rape and murder her in California you would note that “many” women were already very leery of wanting to interact with men as strangers. There already existed a “lot” of paranoia of men—especially men who did not appear to make it into the ranks of the successful (the job title, clothes, salary and who the media honors as good citizens of value—movers and shakers in the business community and sports stars.) If you move to this community as a stranger with no previous ties don’t expect the local women to just love your being alive.

Women will not go out of their way to meet you unless you drive a status car, or have a high paying job, and are handsome, and hang out at the right places like a marina—where they expect to meet someone with a boat. As a nation of consumers they know the names of the status cars and shoes, etc. They know where to meet the men they want to interact. Yet despite the demand for equality there was never any kind of equality of a women buying a man a drink or asking him to dance—not in the United States. The male just couldn’t shake the status of having all those chinks in his armor—hiding away somewhere. Luring somewhere had to be some defect.

Now it seems some want all sexual offenders to be databased with every kind of personal laundry imaginable so they are minutely profiled, and this information should be made available to the world on everything they ever did. But of course the main-stream media would never have a fanatical need to use sex as a weapon against their perceived enemies? They would never highlight the latest scandal if it helped destroy a political career like Bill Clinton, Gary Hart, ad nauseam? No they are far much too fair-minded. They would never gratuitously print a wire story “again” accusing Scott Ritter of Internet interaction with a women pretending to be a teenager—since Scott Ritter was once again, one of the very few with the courage, warning the American people that these latest accusations against Iran’s nuclear buildup, like his warnings that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction, were manufactured propaganda with a sinister agenda. The media would never use its fanatical interest in dirty laundry for its one agenda—no way.

And of course we “all” had an absolute need to know the details of Tiger Woods private life and choices? Its not like this story was good for selling newspaper advertising? More importantly we all had a “right” to receive an apology from Tiger Woods regarding his obvious character faults as a “cheater” of women. You know none of those “intuitive” women were nothing if not victims. It wasn’t there fault they hung around places where people like Woods would be. It is not their fault that Tiger found their presence alluring—surely none dropped their panties for his knighthood to stoop down and return? Surely those women would just as easily fell “victim” to the less wealthy, less famous, and less handsome? Surly we Americans would never demand their female apologies for victimizing the poor Afro-American male who was just trying to make it in the white world of gulf?

But less we forget the script—just remember men are the predators—just look at the divorce settlements. Or if a young women accusing a young man of date rape—since she did not verbally and overtly consent to sex—it is the “male” who is the criminal since his behavior can be seen to be aggressive. Of course it never has anything to do with what she chose to wear, or how she acted, or what kind of psychological games proceeded prior, or how she might have led him and his desires on, or what kinds of unconscious conflicts she may have been dealing as to send conflicting messages. You can simply accuse him of getting her drunk—it is his fault.

The fact is that once a woman accuses a man of something that is it—the male is the perpetrator. Case closed. When Nancy Friday did her research on woman’s sexual fantasies she learned that some women fantasized being raped. Of course she couched this reality with pseudo-scientific explanations—still we never have women charged with rape in this society? They is never a case of sometimes it takes two to tangle.

This is not an argument to be easy on rape or rapist—especially violent criminals that run down joggers and then kill them. But there are lots of ways form women to “hurt” men without being physically violent. You don’t like him and want him fired. Easy—accuse him of harassment and management will quickly find some way of letting him go to avoid any expensive lawsuit (expensive lawsuits paid to women—not men).

And more importantly we must always suspect the worst-case scenario. Someone spreads a rumor that another is a so-called pervert or is an offender, and we “assume” potential violence and serious criminal behavior. Certain labels mean danger, to avoid, to watch, to spy, to be suspicious, etc. Such is the terrorism of paranoia.

Plus people of this nation has never truly accepted those impulses that violate the gender norms of male and female—especially that a male might have androgynous traits—or that a male might seem too effete or narcissistic or whatever. While women made strides in tearing down the stereotypes of proper girl behavior there has been little acceptance of a male’s feminine side.

For example gays may have managed to create enough of public relations campaign to erase some stigma from the word homosexual, but they did not erase anxieties some people might fear in their sexual interests that cross the line—exotic they may be. For example, they did not create much awareness to the basic fact that the lower end of alimentary fact has its own sensorium of sensitivity and that is easily aroused in all normal people. (They don’t talk about such stuff in health education.)

Nor would they address the reality that some women liked backdoor eroticism blurring the line between what is considered homosexual—that is so some didn’t automatically assume it was gay, etc. Plus there are all kinds of anxieties about any kind of potential fetish which is still grist for the American psyche to fear and to “project.”

So obviously there are plenty of unresolved issues in the land of the free? And so a need to be suspicious is more predominant than ever—because no doubt any kind of propensity that deviates from the missionary position must ultimately lead to worst and worst sexual offense?

People are taught as children that strangers are dangerous—and granted some are—but what a form of xenophobic prejudice to grow up with. The “Don’t talk to strangers” mindset carries over to adulthood. Women walk by you and act as if you don’t even exist. They don’t look at you. You are not recognized as a human—just a lamp-post—sorry for existing.

Equally plenty of men today chose not to go into professions that have any interaction with children such as teaching—for fear of being thought a predator or a pedophile. Many don’t go out of their way to interact with children. Perhaps children pick up the idea that men are not really very human to a child level—whatever. No equality there—huh?

Another related point shows that while women make forays into work that was once considered male, female work will stay female because the male is not trusted on face value—which means more jobs for women and less for men.

A couple of years ago a man told me that a women called the police because he was watching a little league game and he had no children there playing. The sheriff deputy advised him to leave even though he had nothing on his record. Now days you only need be male and if you are even looking at a child from a block away you are automatically suspect. Hey we better check is ID he’s going in the children’s library. You want to see a children’s movie like How To Train Your Dragon? Better not unless you are accompanying your own kids.

So the unspoken rule is to follow the female lead and play nonsocial. Don’t look at them no matter how they dress. Don’t approach women. Don’t whistle or make catcalls. Especially don’t compliment them like: “Wow you are so sexy.” Nothing like that as some will take it as an insult, or think you are too provocative and presumptuous. Better to let them buy their sex toys that perform well enough. Just stay your distance.

Besides before they interact with you they will want a detective to do a background check anyway—just in case. You see they can’t afford to take a chance—every male in a woman’s life should be profiled. It’s not racist. It’s not sexist—because men should “prove” to women there are equal. You are guilty until you prove you are innocent.

Nor should we make much of the idea that some women are dating down. Don’t bet your horse on it. Most women won’t look at a male who has less status than she does—not matter what her status. How many female doctors are marrying male nurses? They marry other doctors. Nor is it ironic that women now make up more of the college environment—as men were also given the message they were not welcome on campus unless they went along with all the dogma, but maybe we’ll have a big war soon—then it won’t matter?

Yet what is sexual offense in a society that does not even legalize prostitution? This society basically says that you can only engage in sexual activity with another person if you are legally married or if you are engaged in a monogamous relationship of mutual consent. In another words if you are a male who didn’t make it socially, financially, etc., to attract a women who is looking for whatever kind of guy she wants to get, then you don’t have the legal right to sexual experience (except with yourself and that assumes your not homeless). Granted this same argument works for women who are deprived but on average women are not as promiscuous by nature.

So where are all the enlightened pillars of society screaming for a human right to have sex whether you are married or not—provided you have some means to pay for it? Few people care because this society is so family-centric and Judeo-Christian. And yet it can equally be argued that having children is a sexual offense of the greatest magnitude. What sane person who bring children into a world in which there are thousands of nuclear bombs and other weapons of mass destruction being created? What sane and humane person would bring children into a world on the brink of economic, environmental, and population disaster; or in which abortion is condemned by the same right-wing nuts that readily advocate for the war machine? Anyone who studies human nature, political nature, history, and current realities could not justify bringing more children into this mess—and yet family values and dubious religious values are the bedrock for our current morality? After all why should we feel sorry for children being born into this world today—why, they should feel happy they are lucky enough to inherit all this worldly and cultural wisdom!

But maybe we should change the law that anyone who has children should be charged with a crime and forced to get professional counseling? After all if the republicans are going to demand more government bureaucracy to watch for every sexual perversity and demand all kind of services so “potential” minor offenders get long term treatment then why not the whole human race? Don’t you just want to be born into a world when so many have some kind of attitude of snobbery they can hold against you so as to not have to interact with you? Sign me up—I just love how many snobs there are!

After all does not the spoiled American deserve heaven on earth—that is total security? Why should any American have to live in a world in which even “one” potential criminal of any propensity might be stalking the state of California? Certainly this is too much terrorism to handle? Why let any criminals out of hell—God doesn’t according to the Christian mythology—sounds like the perfect gulag system? Sounds like a Stalinist way of doing things? They justify Abu Graib. They justify locking up people without any rights. They justify torture at Camp Gitmo and taking prisoners to countries that the State Department once condemned for violating human rights. Americans and Californians are definitely the kind of people everyone would want to know.

After all sexuality is not just some auxiliary mode of being—it is your very essence—so let’s criminalize as much of it as we can. Lets make sure life on earth really is heavenly. Bring me in this world so that I can live a celibate lifestyle as a “male” and because I’m too ashamed of my animal nature—yes thank you very much. You know I’m loving it—and my fellow man and woman is so enlightened.

Yes while the paranoid American is fretting that he just might have to cross the path of a criminal that served his time she goes blissfully about her business of not realizing how much criminality happens around the world because the citizen is economically spoiled. How many innocent civilians and children are killed in the name of American propaganda—so the average American can have his nice lifestyle—while newspapers cover-up the realities other people suffer. How “many” brutal dictators has America helped put into power including Saddam Hussein and the brutal Shah of Iran? Yes we call Ronald Reagan hero but he was president when hundreds of people in Central America were tortured—because of the foreign policy he advocated.

How many weapon systems are sold to both sides of a conflict so American weapons companies can make money, etc? How many people are hurt by crime around GI bases in other countries? So much violence happens around the world because the average American doesn’t care—just so long as America has access to cheap energy, world resources and markets, and throwaway fast food packaging, and also that “all” potential criminals in his own country are locked down or hounded and watched in everyway imaginable. There can never be enough security for the average Californian.

Criminals, especially released criminals, are the new terrorists, and so “more” prisons must be built. Then when Posse Comitatus springs with a so-called terrorist event they will have more room to “concentrate” undesirables. This is really not so far from a McCarthyism call to find Hitler’s need for scapegoat. But hey this is the United States and we are too exceptional to fall prey to human nature or history repeating itself.

Yet what more indicative of California than how highly active are gays on strictly gay issues—that is so hyper vigilant about gays rights and yet so blasé about other more important human issues. Where were all the gay activists when it came time to protest before the war in Iraq? Where were all the thousands of California’s gay activists when we had a myriad of issues to confront of far more serious issues than whether they were allowed to be married? Complacently living their isolated lifestyle—hoping that “gay” would become known as a happy word. Totally wrapped up in living the good bar life like the rest of America.

But it is now much more a women world and plenty of women are even more conservative then are men. Plenty were happy to see the ranks of prisoner numbers skyrocket—since most prisoners were men. Furthermore prisoners don’t compete for jobs, and when homeless are not likely to find jobs, especially as they will have some kind of scarlet letter on their state ID they never will—nor will they dare interact in any setting in which someone might demands to see their ID. No one will dare rent them an apartment etc.

There is no such thing as re-integration into the mainstream. Once you fall from grace you are a perpetual outcast. You can never be cured—it is written as a scientific commandment of social science. But will society be cured?

Now the world is chock full of criminals and rapists—they are now hiding in “every” neighborhood. There must be at least one pedophile and rapist lurking around every city block. The huge prison system must be maintained no matter how expensive. Fear rules and the more irrational the better.

This is probably another reason why people want so much information posted on anyone who has ever committed any kind of sexual offense or crime—because it can operate as a kind of political tool. You don’t like your friends boyfriend well tell them that his sister once accused him of touching her ass. In fact we ought to have a database in which every accusation against anyone can be registered and never destroyed. We can then know everyone’s business and every rumor. At least we can be titillated by distraction—but hey no addiction here.

Isn’t that how it sometimes goes—that some people are so voyeuristic they want to know all the dirty laundry about everyone so they can tell everyone else, and more importantly so they never have to confront their own issues—a common theme for many people—especially for some in politics, law, and journalism? They want to know all the details as if possessed of some kind of need to electronically stalk people, especially people they don’t like, and especially men they don’t know or think they like.

That is how it is in the American society—once you make a mistake—it must always be recorded, remembered, and used to stigmatize long after the event occurred. More importantly the label never can leave you—more matter if 99 percent of your life was exemplary to community standards—they will always remember the sin that will weigh so heavily—and no sin is as terrible or as terrorist as a “sexual” sin.

Take for example the act of exhibitionism. It was the “male” perversion—never would women be so debased with anathema. But truly how honestly victimized was such a victim. Did her eyes burn in their sockets? Did he really do it to shock another? Was she psychologically damaged for life? Is that male penis, made of collagen skin and balloon tubes, the real deal on monstrous abomination of the century? Certainly the male genitalia could never gain the worship status of the female. How many men advance because they are sexual objects? But somehow we survive seeing animals urinate and copulate in the wild.

Whereas the person who drives his car dangerously and fast and could readily do some serious financial and physical damage to a victim is seldom viewed in so dire a manner of reprehension. There are all kinds of unethical behavior that damage the rights and needs of others and they suffer little in way of stigma or prison term. Take the people who deliberately sold bad mortgages-knowing they were putting people’s financial livelihood to damage. They still made their cut, some who are looking for their next scam job.

Nancy Friday’s My Secret Garden will have to become more secret—because it wouldn’t be good politics to reveal that women too have all sort of sexual curiosity and propensity. We can’t have the innocent knowing just how sexual some women really are—or what their appetites? We can’t destroy that myth that all women who work in the sex industry just do what they do because they need the money—less we think badly of them for having erotic urge and impulse? Heaven help the woman that is actually sexual—especially when it is not even kosher for men to have such a humanity—at least not the white male.

But then what area of human endeavor is more vulnerable to mobilize a backlash than sex? Sex seems irrational. It does not readable adhere to idealist standards. Even the mandate that women should have organism when a man does is not readable achievable simply because it sounds so egalitarian. More importantly mankind has many hang-ups and anxieties about his or her sexuality. Furthermore there is much potential for guilt and shame to manipulate.

The fact is you don’t live in a sexually healthy society. You never did and likely never will. They haven’t even come out of the closet enough to tell you they would label masturbation as a disease generator—not really all that long ago—kind of like reefer madness. You are not anywhere close to being sexually free. People are constantly fretting that others are violating norms of appropriate sexual expression. Despite the enormity of pornography on the Internet and stores we still live in a sexual police state. (And yet women too do make a “lot” of money in the sex industries but don’t expect many to be branded as dangerous offenders, violators and predators anytime soon—this is to say those women who enjoy showing off their wares and engaging spicy behavior are not considered very offensive by predilection or impulse—there is a market—and people are paying for it where it might elsewhere be labeled a crime).

Nor should we forget the sex industry as off the hook because the entire world sees American pornography—and too often it has stuff offensive to hygienic standards. How often does a women, who has been anally penetrated, expected to orally deliver to the same instrument of bacterial contamination? This medically questionable and socially distasteful reality is allowed to be perpetrated daily by corporate sex industries because the standard of a business’ is the inviolable right to make money (besides they can afford good lawyers and might even be connected to the underground). Yet this is a degradation of women that could use some community scrutiny but again any time people can make money from sex then it seems more hands off.

Apparently its only those people who dare pay prostitutes for sex that will have their car impounded! But then perhaps their attitude is: why shouldn’t it be a standard for beautiful blonde women to have semen dripping from their squirted faces as a finale act of debauchery when so much of our cultural mentality is about “screwing” someone?

More importantly this kind of standard of teaching people poor hygiene is witnessed across the globe while newspapers readers can’t understand why other countries, such as Muslim countries or China, want to limit the amount of “American” pornography their societies can watch? But then again the whole idea of “pornography” no doubt is offensive—even if at times deliciously exciting.

But if you truly lived in a sexually liberated society, the average guy or gal would be able to walk up to a person and be honest. He could say straight out—you are sexy and I would like to have sex with you. This is what the pursuit of happiness is about. But you can’t do that without expecting a lot of fallout. There are always people who feel offended. “I’m not a piece of meat!—although I might dress like one”). Or there is always the jealous rival, etc., waiting to cause trouble—waiting to accuse and argue that your style is beyond the pale and then try to embarrass you in public. There is always the macho hero that is meaner and more territorially possessive.

Still if this were a liberated society a person could communicate a desire for sex and not expect the person approached to slap, denounce, make a scene, or call the bar bouncer, or call the police state, or get a gang to chase and harass. The person could simply say, “I’m not interested and not make a big deal about it.” You would expect a whirlwind of rumor mongering about the pervert—as if desire and quest to satisfy was somehow debased.

One can only imagine how much more time some zealots will spend on their computers checking out the “profile” on every male in their life and neighborhood. Just like the witch hunts of medieval times, sexual criminals as “different” sort of criminals will be used to help alleviate all anxieties of the modern age. Even now men, especially the homeless, the single, the loner, the one who does not play the American game of having a family and being financially successful, is seen as a burden or threat to society—like elderly women were during the witch trials.

And it has been so easy to group “perversion” as a word to mean whatever is despicable. Somehow the very label is enough to destroy a reputation. Yet despite the fact that science has never met the task of adequately and humanely explaining the labels it uses to classify the “deviants” it somehow carries an authority it does not deserve. It can’t cure the diseases but then it can’t see its own tunnel vision.

Sexologists cannot even come to terms with their prejudice about “sexual addiction.” Somehow if you desire more sex than the average person you are addicted? It does occur to these people that libido levels do peter out on their own once satiated? Nevertheless no one is writing a book on sexual starvation—that probably is more common than addiction? Why? Where is there any kind of recognition of sexual deprivation or need for touch in this society? All these sex offender witch hunters and yet they themselves seem too lost in the wilderness of their own distorted passions? You can just bet they are all sexually satisfied?

Or what about the people who push the idea that your erection “should” last a long time or you need Viagra—or you are not really a male? The point here is that social scientists have a long way to go themselves to deal with real issues. In fact there are very few books on the mental health of sexuality. Now why would that be—if it is related to so many serious issues? But nobody wonders about this? Yet those books that do exist related to the mental health of sex are on treating sexual offenders. One can only wince at the thought of such a naïve profession as social scientists, lawyers and journalists are playing expert.

They probably don’t even have a hypothetical model of who would qualify as sexually and socially healthy—perhaps some celibate with no sexual drive? I don’t think they would nominate someone like Xaviera Hollander and her wonderful Xavier’s Supersex: her personal techniques for total lovemaking? Probably not. They probably wouldn’t nominate Isaac Asimov and his How To Be A Dirty Old Man? (Of course he used a pseudonym—why would a prominent scholar and author need to use a pseudonym when writing on how to be a dirty old man—does every male want to grow old that way—apparently not?)

But why don’t they just get to the legislative issue they are really hankering for—to have a profile on every male in America—DNA and all—with every crime, every accusation, every suspicion etc., recorded, so that people in general, and bored journalists can easily find in some “centralized” database? This is basically where we are headed. First sexual offenders will not be allowed to use computers—then this curfew will expand to others, etc. Of course their motives are always worthy—those do-gooders who know how to fix every social problem with more government and tax revenues, and who have little faith in the average person’s ability to lead his or her own life. Their hero would say: “I’m here from the government and I’m here to help you.”

Because how many people have never done anything sexually questionable—at least by some group’s standards? Surely you must have called a 900 number once? Surely you thought about a sexually deviant thing or two—at least for a minute—tell the therapist so she can write it down? Or at least you dreamed about it? Or maybe you’re just angry that you don’t get the kind of erotic you really secret want on some level—so at least you should know what kind of life others live? Well there must be someone besides the self to blame?

What is the opposite of a sexual offense—a sexual defense? That doesn’t sound very complementary. Is there a label for an act that is sexually positive while being pro-social? What label is that? Meanwhile there are lots of unemployed, lots of people worried about their kids being sent to war, lots of people worried about financial matters, etc. But this sexual offender “program” will be good politics for the naïve masses that the media usually distains as hoi polloi populist.