- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
Sarah El Haïry, the French government’s High Commissioner for Children, said on Monday that she wanted authorities to investigate whether any children might be at risk in the homes of buyers of what she called “paedocriminal objects”.
“These dolls are training tools for predators – and unfortunately, sometimes the first step before moving on to actual abuse,” she said in an interview with BFMTV.
“When you buy something as vile as this, there’s a heightened risk of acting out. That means children nearby could be in danger, and they must be protected.”
El Haïry urged online platforms to share information about customers who have purchased such dolls, to allow authorities to carry out checks where needed. “We need to follow the chain right through – from suppliers to the men who keep these horrors in their homes, sometimes with children sleeping in the next room,” she said. “Enough is enough. These are not ordinary objects.”
[…]
I also found that claim troublesome. For all we know, access to plastic or silicone children may reduce the desire for real life children. Hard to say without actual data from professionals and scientists studying this kind of thing.
Sometimes it feels like the absolutely justified “ick” factor of simply wanting to shut down everything related to CSA gets in the way of actually helping the children that are the (potential) victims.
Truly, and I should say I only know this from my psych class, which was just general psychology; nothing specialized. It’s still something my professor was quite passionate about, as that “ick” factor certainly gets in the way a lot of the time and articles like this really annoyed her.
This is similar to the arguments against “regular” porn - that it reduces the desire to pursue a real-life partner. Instead, allegedly, people are happy to skip that entirely in favor of enjoying porn, alone.
I have no idea what the truth is (probably somewhere in the middle), but they are in direct conflict with each other.
I am not sure why you say, “instead.” The argument is that regular porn reduces the desire to pursue a real-life partner, and the second sentence confirms that, no?
“Instead” was meant to be within the previous clause. It was originally a single sentence, but it was way too long so I broke it into two. I can see how it’s misleading.
Phrased another way, the claim is that regular porn reduces desire, and its users are happy to be alone.
Okay, got it, thanks. I was just wondering if I had missed your point.
Personally, I find that absolutely anything that keeps pedophiles away from children is worth looking into. Over the years, I have met a few people that had sex at a young age, most of them willingly, and it always seemed to have broken something in them permanently. It’s just anecdotal, but so consistent I find it frightening, regardless of ick.