The lives of sex offenders are often confused and disorganized. Modern sex offender rehabilitation approaches such as the good lives model emphasize holistic aims such as helping offenders to live more satisfying and fulfilling lives, rather than merely teaching them to avoid risk. The appeal of the model lies in its justification by paternalism: Whatever harms are inflicted on offenders during the rehabilitation process are ultimately for their own good. But paternalism has its limitations, which include potential infringements on offenders’ autonomy and human rights, the risk of therapists imposing their own values and attitudes, and false claims that harmful interventions are justified by their benefit for offenders. Furthermore, some recent empirical studies suggest that offenders themselves do not necessarily prefer personal well-being goals over risk management techniques and that some offenders find it distressingly easy to incorporate “good lives” principles into an ongoing antisocial lifestyle. These limitations need to be taken into account when applying a good lives approach.