As an alternative to the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” military policy, I suggested that recruiters should simply hook up recruits to a lie detector and ask them if they’ve ever even thought about a sexual encounter with a member of the same sex. When everyone fails the test, the military would then have no one serving in our volunteer force. It would then be time for a draft, or the military would have to reconsider the DADT policy.

Of course, there is another testing procedure that could soon be employed to assess whether one is sexually aroused by a person of the same or opposite sex – or even an animal (of either sex) – called penile plethysmography (PP).

It’s a simple test. A pressure-sensitive device is attached around a man’s penis. He’s presented with an array of sexually stimulating images. A machine determines his level of sexual attraction by measuring minute changes in his erectile responses.

I mention this because a few weeks ago a federal panel ruled that this procedure is lawful, in certain circumstances, but that less drastic options must be considered first.

According to the Los Angeles Daily Journal, a federal judge ordered a Woodland Hills man, Mathew Henry Weber, to agree to PP testing. A court convicted Weber of possessing child porn on his computer and sentenced him to 27 months in prison and then three years of supervised release.

The government argued that PP monitoring would show whether Weber posed a risk to the public. So a federal judge ordered Weber to have his penis monitored. Weber appealed the condition on grounds that the condition was unconstitutional.

Weber’s case is not unique. It is apparently used in as many as one-fourth of all adult sex-offender programs.

The system was developed by a Czech psychiatrist to study “sexual deviance.” Not surprisingly, it was used by the Czech government to identify and “cure” homosexuals.

I have a suspicion it may be employed by the right wing to screen candidates for office. No more closeted male Republicans. Show male candidates a photo of Denny Hastert in a jock strap and see if that gets the juices going.

Perhaps they will use it with the ex-gays. I hear Maury and Geraldo calling: “Let’s see if James is really an ex-gay. Here’s the new West Hollywood men’s water polo team calendar – oh my, watch that penis rise. It’s registering a 9, and that’s on the Richter scale. And I haven’t even removed the calendar from the black bag.”

The court noted that the American Psychiatric Association doubts the reliability and validity of PP testing because men can simply alter their thoughts while looking at an object.

Ironically, scientists have developed a term for the above. It’s called faking. I’m not making this up. “Oh yes, honey, when I had my eyes closed I was thinking about you and not the swimmer in that calendar.”

Let’s be thankful for faking. It’s saved marriages and countless gay relationships. But it’s not saving kids from abuse. Savvy molesters escape detection through PP testing.

The court also noted that courts will not admit results of PP tests in court.

Despite the obvious problems with such a test, two members of the court validated it, though with grave doubts. The test is likely to “strike most people as especially unpleasant and offensive,” wrote Circuit Judge Marsha S. Berzon.

She and another judge found that PP testing might be justified in some limited cases.

The Daily Journal highlighted a concurring opinion by Judge John Noonan who found the PP test inappropriate anytime.

“By committing a crime and being convicted of it, a person does not cease to be a person. A prisoner is not a mere tool of the state to be manipulated by it to achieve the purposes the law has determined appropriate in punishment,” Judge Noonan wrote. “… The procedure violates a prisoner’s mental integrity by intruding images into his brain… requiring him to masturbate. The prisoner retains his humanity and therefore has purposes transcending those of the state. A prisoner, for example, cannot be compelled to stimulate himself sexually in order for the government to get a sense of his current proclivities.”

At some point the Supreme Court will simply rule that PP testing under any circumstances is not very useful and perhaps could be more dangerous than helpful. It would be simply fallacious for a court or a parent to rely on PP test results.

Robert DeKoven is a professor at California Western School of Law.