09 June 2007
Monsters and Men is a book published by the BBC about child sexual abuse, and accompanied a 2002 television series. As the title suggests it is primarily focused on male abusers, but there was, astonishingly enough (bearing in mind this is from the leftie feminist-infested BBC) references to female paedophiles. There are even references to how female abuser’s activities are hidden behind the media’s lace curtain, and how they often get away with it – or merely receive a slap on the wrist – because their male victims are regarded as somehow being ‘lucky’ to be abused.
There are a few statistics quoted regarding female child abusers:
In terms of what academic research has discovered, it has been found that adult females abuse in 6% – 17% of cases with female victims and in 1% – 24% with males. Female offenders abuse more girls than boys, and it has been speculated that females commit between 3% and 13% of all sexual abuse.
Regardless of where the real figures lie within these somewhat vague speculations, there is no doubt that the feminist’s insistence that men have a monopoly on sexual abuse of children is total rubbish (just like everything else that that hateful ideology insists.)
A police chief is quoted at length in explaining why (in 2002) there were only nine women in the British prison system convicted of sexually abusing children when it was clear that there should be far more if women are responsible for as many as 13% of all child sexual abuse cases. Primarily it is because people assume women never abuse children – and indeed the BBC guy who wrote the book states that he assumed women ‘just didn’t do it’ – and this, of course, is thanks to feminism and its all-pervasive ideology that women are never ever perpetrators of wrongdoing.
The police chief further explains that:
[Women] are getting away with it because it is far more likely that the child victim of the offender is not going to tell anybody because often she is all they have left. Some of those [male] victims are remarkably young, some of them are babies.
Although not stated explicitly, this implies – at least in this policeman’s view – that most sexual abuse of boys at the hands of women is by their mothers, and presumably – if the offender is all the boy has left – single mothers specifically. If the boy reports his single mum, he’s all alone and therefore off to a grotty government care home. Plus, in such a situation, there’s obviously no father to protect the boy, and contrary to what feminists say, fathers are just as protective of their children as women, and being physically stronger, in a far better position to protect the child, whether from someone else in the family or otherwise (plus children raised in single mother households are far more at risk of abuse at the hands of men than those raised in proper two-parent families. They are more at risk from physical abuse because mummy is more liable to shack up with thugs who don’t give a shit about some other guy’s offspring, and they are more at risk from sexual abuse because, lets face it, if a male child molester is intent on fiddling with some kids, he’s going to target those raised by a struggling single mother who – once she is getting on a bit and deserted by the thugs – is grateful for any male attention, and, more importantly, whose children are not being watched over by a devoted father who is ready, willing and able to strangle any pervert who messes with his offspring.)
The police chief also points out how, in this society, boys reporting being abused by adult women will often be regarded as somehow benefiting from the experience, even though this attitude would be rightly held in contempt if the sexes of the abuser and the abused were reversed.
Then there’s another population, moving through the ages, of adolescent males. Well, what kind of full blooded adolescent male is going to make a fool of himself by complaining about the fact that his mum or stepmum or the woman next door has been sexually molesting him? He’s supposed to celebrate sex when he’s thirteen or fourteen. Then there’s the babysitting scenario for another population. Male victims of females are of all victims the least likely to tell.
This attitude is indeed common, even amongst us men. Many guys – even myself – can initially find it tempting to think that it would have been quite cool to have been seduced by an attractive adult woman when we were twelve or so, but the mistake here is that us guys are thinking with the perspective and life experiences of grown men. It is easy to forget that, back when we were twelve, we’d have still had the underdeveloped perspective and life experiences of a child, and would end up rather confused and messed up by it.
(After all, regardless of the sex of either party, an adult cannot really ‘seduce’ a child anyway, merely coerce them, by force or other means. Similarly, an adult cannot have a sexual ‘affair’ with a child, yet there was a news story from the US a year or two ago about a woman in her twenties who had been having sex with an eight-year-old boy, yet some of the news reports actually referred to the woman’s ‘affair‘ with the boy, as if it was some sort of slightly-taboo but otherwise legitimate sexual relationship!)
Around the age of twelve or thirteen, most schoolboys start having rude fantasies of being seduced by the hottest female teacher in school, but were these fantasies to actually came true, most boys would suffer serious and negative psychological effects by it. This does indeed happen in such cases. Various studies show that boys molested by adult women suffer as many psychological problems as girls molested by adult men, the only difference being in how the problems articulate themselves; girls often internalize trauma – anorexia, self-harm, depression – whilst boys are more likely to externalize trauma, in the form of aggression or even committing sex crimes themselves when older (meaning the male victims are less likely to be seen as actual victims than girls.)
Yet despite this, women – female teachers being quite common these days, or at least more likely to get nabbed – who abuse underage boys are treated lightly, primarily because of the Pussy Pass but also because authorities seem compelled to believe the boy probably enjoyed it.
Finally the subject of female sex tourists is bought up, and their reported employment of Viagra and similar pills on small boys:
Practically nothing is known about the extent or number of women who travel for the purposes of having sex with children, although there is particular mention [in crime reports] of female offenders, claimed to be mainly middle-aged Caucasian European women, in the tourist areas of Kenya, a similar picture being increasingly seen in the tourist regions of Asia. Anecdotal evidence exists that reveals the use by adult women of erection-inducing drugs on pre-pubescent male children. The repeated use of drugs on a child will, I am told, permanently damage the child’s body. This is griveous bodily harm by anyone’s interpretation.
At this point the BBC guy shows, deep down, that he seems to have a serious mangina streak:
Then there’s also the possibility that women who travel for the purposes of sex with children are more likely than their male counterparts to be robbed or tricked into parting with money by ‘pimps’ who have no intention of or do not want to run the risk of supplying a child for abuse. And obviously the woman is not in a position to complain.
Now is it just me, or is he showing sympathy for poor female paedophiles getting robbed or defrauded? Incredible!
I wish I hadn’t read the book actually, the whole thing is not very pleasant reading, but still, there’s a few quotes and statistics there if you need anything to bash the Women Never Abuse fembot brigade.
(On the same subject is this older post.)
posted by Duncan Idaho @ 12:14 PM
At 4:35 AM, phoenix said…
I was actually under the impression that women abuse children far more in all levels, sexual or non-sexual. Whenever I walk through a public area that would have parents and their children, I always see mothers/women either verbally or physically abusing their children. The same verbal abuse that would be classified as DV if it came from a man to a woman. If the statistics don’t bear it out, it’s simply because the statistics have been doctored, just as the alleged feminist claims that women are better drivers, and that there is a gender paygap (both debunked I believe).
Women claim girls mature faster, and that even young men aren’t mature, but that a 12 year old girl is mature. If that’s true, then the age of consent for women should be lowered, while the corresponding age raised for men, to whatever women consider the intellectual equivalents, and if there aren’t at all, then men are incapable of consenting, and as such, can’t be held liable for rape (in fact, men are thusly always raped).
The young boy with the older female wanted it as much as the younger girl with the older males. Teen and pre-teen girls are obsessed with sex, that is how the “boy bands” all got popular. These girls want to have sex with those men, whom are all in their twenties. Just as they chase after them, I’m sure more than a few chase after male teachers. The difference is older men, for the most part, do not want to take advantage of these girls, where as women have no such moral qualms with taking advantage of a young boy.
At 4:35 AM, Anonymous said…
My best friend back in the States (I don’t see him much any more) is 70 years old. When he was 11 years old, and large for his age, he was seduced by an adult woman.
Yeah, he loved it. So, for the next 34 years, he thought only of his next piece of ***. No high school dates. No girl friends. He did not view women as humans, only sexual meat. He boinked married women; single women; hookers.
At age 45, he finally realized he had messed up his life because he was led into sex long before he was able to emotionally deal with it in a sane, emotionally healthy way. Yes, it was abuse, and harmed him greatly.
Those idiots who say women are doing these guys a favor are a menace to the safety of our children.
Anonymous age 65
At 6:00 AM, Anonymous said…
The lack of action against female sex offenders reminds me of the lack of laws 100 or so years ago against lesbians.
Although male homosexuality was criminalised and gay men were routinely thrown in jail, the social myth of the time was “women didn’t do that sort of thing”.
Once again, if a behaviour is considered immoral, then women simply don’t do it.
It was only after homo-sexuality was de-criminalised and it became safe to announce oneself as gay, that women started showing up as lesbians.
In numbers not significantly different to men.
I suggest that this hideous reluctance to censure women as equally as men is the single-most pressing issue for us today.
(Thoroughly enjoying the whole Paris Hilton ballyhoo. A 26 year-old “woman of the world” screaming and bawling for her ma at the prospect of a few weeks in jail makes her the poster girl for all those “strong women” out there. She joins Lindy England – her of the US Army holding a leash around the neck of an insensible naked man – as the face of modern womankind).
At 9:25 AM, Captain Zarmband said…
I suspect that the actual number of female abusers undoubtedly outweighs the number of male abusers. This is because women can abuse young boys and girls without any serious consequences.
As well as this, in Britain, there is no age of consent for lesbian sex, therefore, an older female will not be prosecuted for having a sexual relationship with a girl who is under age in the hetro-sexual sense. When was the last time you heard of any legal action being taken against an older lesbian who’s had a sex with a young girl? I can’t ever recall any cases coming to court and yet it must happen.
At 10:52 AM, Anonymous said…
Sorry to be off-topic but check out this column:
From Conception to the Shroud, Women Rule
At 12:23 PM, mfsob said…
Haven’t met a woman yet who won’t try to invoke the Pussy Pass, including crying in the courtroom, hysterics during hearings, etc., etc. – and that shit STILL works!
At 6:54 PM, ubg said…
Here is an interesting graph from a US government site.
At 38.8%, “mother only” is the largest group of child abusers.
At 10:38 PM, dan said…
There is a very good clip on You Tube called Bull Busters: The Truth about Violent Women. It is a three part segment and very
good – something, as the author suggests, the media doesn’t want you to know about. A link to it is Feminists Disrupt a Forum for Battered Husbands. Another good clip is titled: Breaking the Lies the Gentler Sex Offenders. As you can imagine, there are a lot of pissed off fembots blogging on them. It’s worth a look.
At 12:33 AM, a Man’s Home is His Castle said…
Child Abuse, a subjective term, is an industry. Feeds and empowers the State and its micromanagers.
The CORRECT answer is private property is sacrosanct. What goes on there, other than murder, is NOBODY’S BUSINESS.
Otherwise you let the camel (State) put its nose into the tent. Soon its running your house, affairs, life.
Don’t fall for the seductive abuse canard.
At 1:53 AM, Anonymous said…
Here is a quote from this article:
Damn skank dodged the needle.
At 5:02 PM, Anonymous said…
Correct me if I am wrong but surely
child abusers and paedophiles are 2 different animals.The word paedophilia means fondness,inordinate or not,and support of children.It seems to be a word bandied about by the government to suggest that anyone who it considered to be overfond of children should be considered an abuser and therefore answerable
to the courts.
When I was a kid in the 40’s my friends and I knew many people,usually old men,who were totally harmless who identified with children because they were a
little simple and had never really grown into adulthood.I’m not proud of it ,but we used to make fun of them. These people were paedophiles as opposed to abusers or molesters.
The word is used by the public at large to denote an evil person.
Am I right or wrong and if I AM RIGHT could we help change this
unfortunate error by calling a spade a spade,there is too much abuse of the english language by
people who should really know better.