> A heterosexual ... would not have received the same punishment, but likely would not have been spared jail time. I don't know if we can make the assumption t

> A heterosexual ... would not have received the same punishment, but likely would not have been spared jail time. I don't know if we can make the assumption that it was his being gay that spared him the jail time, or if other considerations were at play; and if another man benefiting from the same considerations but with different preferences would have been treated (edit: clarifying) more leniently, i.e. no chemical castration, as you say. And together with the following: > But don't we still chemically castrate certain sex offenders? This goes back to the view back then of homosexuality as sexual (and criminal?) deviance. I feel like we're pretty much back at the point of his sexuality being the reason for the chemical castration.