*appreciate* amendments.

Steel,
Dickie is correct, of course (chemical) castration only applies to paedophiles who have offended.
In my language (Dutch) there are two words to define paedophiles: there are paedophiles- the ones who can control themselves, and there are paedosexuals- they are the ones who have offended.

I know that there are paedophiles who have requested to be chemically castrated because they are so scared of their urges to have sex with children that they feel they cannot be trusted. I have uttermost respect for them.
I once helped counsel a paedophile (not a paedosexual) who was married but who never told his wife about his urges. When his wife wanted to start a family he realised he had to tell her. He knew that having a child around him all the time would be too tempting for him to resist. His wife is a warm, understanding woman, and the marriage survived. He can now come to his wife when he has hard times staying away from children; and at those times she will stay with her husband 24/7. The man loves children enough to not want to harm them. Not all paedophiles are monsters.

Other paedophiles haven’t been so lucky in finding such strong support and the ones who don’t want to harm kids resort to requesting castration.
I wish there was a better solution; one which would allow someone to have a normal sex life but to not be attracted to children. It seems quite cruel for someone to be deprived of normal sexual relationships, but until there is a better alternative, children will need to be protected.

Dickie outlines the options very well: incarceration or castration. What do you think of the option for paedosexuals who've been released from prison and banned from areas such as playgrounds and schools? I haven’t made up my mind about that yet, but have a feeling it would still put children in danger.

What do you propose as a solution, Steel?

Anyway, we strayed from the original topic- because some people find it hard to distinguish between homosexuals and paedophiles.