Still Wondering Why The Netherlands Is A Hub For Human Trafficking And Sexual Abuse Of Children? Here’s One Answer
In a lengthy and amazingly ‘woolly’ news article published by Dutch newspaper Trouw, two Dutch sexologists Erik Van Beek and Rik Van Lunsen elaborate on their preferred approach to the pedophile problem.
1. They argue that ‘virtual’ (as in not real, artificially made, computer generated) child abuse images could have beneficial effects when treating pedofiles in mental institutions. They do argue that those images should be produced by bona fide producers and should carry an official sign of approval. However, Van Beek also argues that those virtual child abuse images should be easily accessible, without any negative consequences for the person acquiring them, so that the offering of virtual child abuse images could compete with the illegal offering of real child abuse images and perhaps disrupt latter market. Such a theory does carry with it the precondition that pedophiles everywhere should be able to access it, including online environments. Since – due to technological prowess – it’s very difficult to differentiate virtual from non-virtual child abuse images nowadays, this suggestion seems to be one of the most stupid ideas ever brought forward by a ‘specialist’ in this field.
2. According to the ‘experts’, the very activity of watching child abuse images does NOT increase the chance of a pedophile actually engaging in child abuse itself. However, they DO claim that if pedophiles are being prevented from watching that material, chances of them engaging in actual child abuse activities WILL increase.
Furthermore, the article tries to convince the reader to have some sympathy with pedophiles. As such it states:
“Those who are longing for child pornography, have a big problem. Because that’s illegal” (Duh! Everyone who is longing for something illegal has a problem. Let’s give a bank robber some fake money, maybe that’ll help?)
“One cannot offer them (pedophiles) anything, because as soon as the material gets too real, it’s illegal” (Why do you think that is, Einstein?)
“One should offer the virtual child pornography to the group that doesn’t want to hurt children and, when experiencing these stimuli, will not hurt anyone. One allows them to play in their garden of lust, so to speak”
And then the most brilliant quote from the mouth of Erik van Beek: “The only good reason to ban child pornography is that the production of it requires the abuse of children” (yeah…right….so people watching children being abused , even when the CGI version cannot be differentiated from the real thing – because it has to cause the proper stimuli – is just peachy??)
The article does offer one piece of information that is very useful. Apparently, and unconsciously, the therapists are really and sort of desperately looking for ways to help out their patients. And they hope and believe that by allowing pedophiles to indulge in their vices, if only just a tiny bit and in a controlled environment and with use of ‘virtual’ child pornography, the problem will be contained in the best way possible. However, at one point during the article Rik van Lunsen does acknowledge that:
Pedophiles cannot be converted. Their sexual preference has been locked before they’re eight years of age.
Who knows, maybe such an approach could work to make life more bearable for both the pedophiles that are emprisoned or hospitalized and the prison and hospital staff as well. But please don’t litter the internet with ‘virtual’ child abuse images, as something like ‘virtual’ child abuse images probably doesn’t even exists…It’s almost like giving drug addicts government approved medication which has the same effect as heroin, and then distribute the alternative drugs on the streets to have it compete with the illegal offering out there.
And in this case, it will be very hard for internet users to see the difference between real and virtual child abuse images, especially if the virtual images are supposed to have the same ‘impact’ on these predators. And ‘signs of approval’ are easily counterfeited too.
All of this could only result in a thriving new legal and illegal market for ‘virtual’ or who knows, perhaps even ‘virtualized’ child abuse images. That’s certainly not helpful to say the least.
Oh and according to Rik van Lunsen, Marc Dutroux and Robert Mikelsons are just spectres and huge exceptions to the rule. And they’re much more psychopaths than they are pedophiles.
Keep calm and carry on…
Dutch language news article:
And Then There Are Always Idiots Like Brendan O’Neill: If You Were Abused By Jimmy Savile, Maybe You Should Keep It To Yourself
People Are Getting Nervous. Stop the witch hunt for Jimmy Savile’s pals, says comic Jim Davidson