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.”
[…]
Are they though? Does this person have a background in psychology? No? If she did then she would know only pedophiles that are also psychopaths are capable of harming children. Paedophilia is the same thing as being straight or gay, there’s nothing they can do about it and going after these people is likely just a waste of resources and time and taking away tools they use to suppress their urges will only cause harm.
A better use of taxpayer resources would be finding sites on the dark web that are used to buy and sell “unsocialised” children, like one that was somewhat recently found with mostly Canadian users that showed a high percentage of users were based in Alberta.
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.
I remember some debates in my country (Germany) back then about first-person shooter games where they also claimed, that possible terrorists are using them to ‘train’ on it.
Turns out it was bullshit. So from what we know, we know nothing. We know for sure, that this topic is a growth medium for virtue signalling, which usually isn’t a great advisor.
then 9/11 bombers trained on Microsoft Flight Simulator.
My SO calls it the “Hitler also ate sugar!” argument.
[X] doubt
I agree that only sociopaths and psychopaths are capable of enjoying harming other human beings, and that non-psycho-or-sociopathic pedophiles will not harm children intentionally. I even agree that not every sexual experience made in childhood is harmful per se. Nonetheless, most victims of pedophilia do report being harmed by the experience of abuse.
I also agree with your use of taxpayer ressources argument. And I’m convinced that a sincere unbiased study would most likely show that the use of such pedophiliac sex dolls would decrease the risk of pedophiles abusing children.
And what degree do you have that enables you to spit out this gibberish? I hope they shut this platform not only in France but everywhere. Look at the picture, this is insane.
Why would it matter what it looks like? No harm, no foul.
Is it gibberish, though?
Yes, to us these dolls are insane and the notion of pedo dolls is disgusting, and so is the notion of AI generated pedo material. Outlawing these seems to be what most people want, and who can blame them. Everything about pedophilia is repulsive.
But what if these actually reduced the chance for pedos to go after real kids? Isn’t that question worth to be asked, and depending on the answer, wouldn’t choosing the lesser evil be the sensible thing to do?
I have no idea what the answer is, I have no background in psychology whatsoever, but simple logic dictates that everything that helps protect kids should be considered, even if it’s disgusting in and of itself.
Here is another image. It’s disgusting.
Yes, it is. But it still seems you haven’t even read or acknowledged what I said.
I’d say your logic is fallacious, but you don’t seem to be relying on logic at all. It’s fine to find things disgusting, but in the end the question that should be asked is “what’s the best way to protect children,” not “what can I do so I don’t have to think about icky things.”
deleted by creator