Female paedophile compendium & discussion on society and their enablers

[Markorian]

There's numerous posts OP made about female pedophiles with only girl victims. Did you even read the posts?

Of course she didn't. The idea that anyone else on earth is a human being capable of having thoughts of their own and existing outside of her own (mostly empty) head is completely foreign and anathema to her.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

Amusing as ever to post objective and theoretical argument and in response to receive ad hominem and personally-aimed accusations. Stay gold, Ponyboy, stay gold.

You're projecting here

outrage you so much?

a woman with extremely similar beliefs to yours

Your problem

your brain

do not view anyone but yourself as human.

If you

you know

your intentions would have been

you hate

you hate

special little prissy, thin-skinned princess YOU

to you.

Therefore, according to you

Disingenuous cunt .

You just couldn't help yourself, could you ?

You came

to you

You are

she didn't.

her own

to her.

 

[Markorian]

"All I did was say that boys who get molested as children by a woman deserved it and had it coming because I was once called a rude word on the Internet by a man! I just can't understand why that would lead to any sort of hostility against  me, the main character of all reality!"

 

[Tablet County]

The thrust of this thread is the opposite of that: that it is supposedly not rare and not novel, and to highlight how evil and coddled women are (nevermind that the first 12 pages show women being punished).

That's your assumption; you have nothing other than circumstantial evidence to suggest that this is OP's intent, and I personally have reason to believe that this is not his intent, given how often I've personally seen OP go against sexist and incelish posters talking about how all women are soulless retards who need to be hit with a brick and go back to the kitchen. Anecdotal? Sure, but it leads me to doubt that this was concocted by a misogynist incel to demonize women. I could be misremembering, even, but I doubt that.

Many have hopped on to argue that no one cares about boys*, even though some of the victims of the posted perpetrators were girls AND that the perpetrators of sex crimes against boys are very very often men (and far greater, by volume).

*which was the stated purpose of OP's prior thread (linked below), after which they stated they would create a separate, related thread - and again, it is a thread that focuses only on female perpetrators, despite a lot of talk about caring about the boys.

The previous thread was about how young male victims of female sexual assault were often looked over by a distracting amount of people on the internet. The only real contradiction you have here is that some of the victims were not boys, which is fair play, but you could very easily chalk that up to OP getting emotional over the subject and not doing his due diligence, something which I myself have struggled with before. You're completely glossing over the crucial, second part (at least in the initial thread) that the main concern was that there are an unusual amount of people, some of which are users on this very website, that downplay female molestation of teenage boys.

The threads are disingenuous because OP wraps a soft blanket of "care about boys," when the real purpose is"women are monsters";

I think you only presume that this is a gendered 4D chess propaganda push due to your own prejudices, which I think there's more evidence to suggest is true.

if the point was the boy victims of sexual crimes, there wouldn't be just women shown for a dozen pages, and if the OP cared about child victims of women in general, they'd not have spoken in their narrative only about boy victims. Instead they spoke about women/ boys but as support for it included female perpetrators against girls, and wholly ignored boy victims of men.

There is no contradiction in the OP only showing female pedophiles, especially seeing as it's in the title of the thread. Even in the initial thread, the brunt of OP's disgust was not towards women (other than the diddlers), but towards people who downplayed female sex abuse of boys, and the perceived societal reason that causes these people to downplay said molestation.

And in fact, the people selected in that thread to represent these downplayers were, guess what? MEN. MALE. AS IN NOT-FEMALE. MALELY MALE MEN WHO DISMISS FEMALE MOLESTATION BECAUSE THEY HAVE WEIRD SEX FANTASIES ABOUT HAVING SEX WITH THEIR HOT MILF DOMMY MOMMY TEACHER.

You have, as far as I can see, zero evidence of OP acting with disgust toward women who are not pedophiles OR genderspergs who take attacks against one woman as an attack against all women. At best, you have evidence of OP being a retard conflating internet people saying weird shit with actual policy and justice.

 

[Tablet County]

And sorry for the doublepost, @Friend of Dorothy Parker but what exact relevance do the statistics of male sex abuse of children have to do with female sex abuse of children? Again, if it's to assuage people that female sex offense is rare and we shouldn't all grab the torches and pitchforks to put all them dang dirty foids who won't let me fuck them back in the kitchen, then that's fine. It's actually quite nice to know that this is rare. But other than that it's kind of meaningless to point out that men are more likely to rape kids than women are, especially when no one is actually refuting that! At most, people are saying that female molestation goes underreported, which is basically just conjecture and is equally meaningless.

 

[Markorian]

It's actually quite nice to know that this is rare.

Personally, I'd say that  one child molested or raped, no matter if it's a boy or a girl, if the rapist was a man, woman, tranny, genderspecial, straight, gay, lesbian, bi, white, black, hispanic, arab, asian, 18, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 years old, citizen, naturalized or otherwise, immigrant, illegal, poor, middle class, rich, politician, teacher, fireman, cop, or homeless crack addict, is too many.

 

[Tablet County]

Personally, I'd say that  one child molested or raped, no matter if it's a boy or a girl, if the rapist was a man, woman, tranny, genderspecial, straight, gay, lesbian, bi, white, black, hispanic, arab, asian, 18, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 years old, citizen, naturalized or otherwise, immigrant, illegal, poor, middle class, rich, politician, teacher, fireman, cop, or homeless crack addict, is too many.

You'd think that goes without saying...

 

[powdered toast]

it is supposedly not rare and not novel

9-17% (that's underreported) is not rare. One out of every 10 public school employees of both genders commits sexual offenses against children, would you consider that rarely happening? If an event occurs once every ten days, does it rarely occur? Among public school employee predators females are represented in up to 25% of those cases. Is that rare? Is this novel? We can't even discuss this? Will you actually answer this time? Do you have the same attitude toward males? Predators are only 3% of the general population, so you ignore that it happens at all?

I'm sorry, but this is literally not so incredibly rare that it should be ignored or downplayed. We can have a discussion about it and it does not automatically mean we are overrepresenting women as predators. Whatever kind of mental gymnastics you did to get there needs to promptly fuck off.

"We can't ever talk about female predators because it makes it seem like there are a lot of female predators" I do not understand this excuse and neither have you bothered to explain it at all.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

9-17% (that's underreported) is not rare.

I was replying to a comment that stated it was....

One out of every 10 public school employees of both genders commits sexual offenses against children, would you consider that rarely happening?

You have stats on public school employees? Please share!

If an event occurs once every ten days, does it rarely occur? Among public school employee predators females are represented in up to 25% of those cases. Is that rare? Is this novel?

Again, that was not my characterization.

We can't even discuss this? Will you actually answer this time? Do you have the same attitude toward males? Predators are only 3% of the general population, so you ignore that it happens at all?

Of course not. All child predation is horrific, every single one. I am not clear why pointing out defects in the OP is being interpreted as disagreeing with the underlying fact of child and adolescent sexual victimization, or that perpetrators or horrible people, or that no child or adolescent should be predated on.

"We can't ever talk about female predators because it makes it seem like there are a lot of female predators" I do not understand this excuse and neither have you bothered to explain it at all.

Because that is not my position.

 

[Tablet County]

Of course not. All child predation is horrific, every single one. I am not clear why pointing out defects in the OP is being interpreted as disagreeing with the underlying fact of child and adolescent sexual victimization, or that perpetrators or horrible people, or that no child or adolescent should be predated on.

Posting the male statistics when the thread is explicitly about female offenders gives the impression that you're trying to downplay the issue, and accusing the OP of sexism when there appears to be very little that suggests that he is comes across like a smear job. That's not to say that I think that's what you're doing, like I said I think you have existing biases that lead you to make certain conclusions, but you can see where people might make assumptions. And it doesn't help that other users have poisoned the well by trying to make this thread about about a years-long gay internet war.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

Posting the male statistics when the thread is explicitly about female offenders gives the impression that you're trying to downplay the issue, and accusing the OP of sexism when there appears to be very little that suggests that he is comes across like a smear job. That's not to say that I think that's what you're doing, like I said I think you have existing biases that lead you to make certain conclusions, but you can see where people might make assumptions. And it doesn't help that other users have poisoned the well by trying to make this thread about about a years-long gay internet war.

All fair!

And I thought the statistics about gender of victims sorted by age and gender of perpetrator were interesting. I was surprised that victims of women predators were (except for statutory and incestual abuse of adolescents) more or less even between boys and girls - interesting both on its own and as compared to how the victims' genders broke out across the population of child/ adolescent victims of male perpetrators. ...And yes, the stats made the point that girls are more preyed on by numbers, but that aside, more interesting is what the percentages for men and separately for women suggest behaviorally or so biologically about male and female predators.

 

[Diggus Bickus]

The thread is about the women that rape children. I can't speak for other shitposters but I am aware that men and trannies commit 90% of the crimes and I am more than happy to point them out. It's not like we don't have like four subforums where 80% of the lolcows featured are sick men who raped children or dogs, right?

Like other users have said, this is a thread just to highlight the other side because as minor as it is, it still exists.

Both man hate thread and women hate thread regulars coming to shit it up are fucking retarded. This thread's a lost cause, because god forbid someone talks about something that's relegated minorly to the beauty parlor in mass debates. This isn't fence sitting, it's common sense.

 

[powdered toast]

is not my position

Perhaps you could actually articulate your position so I understand better. I have asked you three times now why this shouldn't be discussed and you just will not directly answer.

Stats on public school employees. I did share them, that's how you know them now, so I'm assuming you wanted sources, not stats.

NIH estimate 15% female

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35499558/

Canadian estimate: 25% female in cases in which there is a single victim, and 5-25% across all subsets. 86% of all of them were teachers

https://protectchildren.ca/pdfs/C3P_CSAinSchoolsReport_en.pdf

griffith.edu.au 13% to 26% female among school employees and mentions the Shakeshaft study (2004) that suggested it was 43% female in school settings



This is actually what I wanted to discuss here.

Edited

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

Perhaps you could actually articulate your position so I understand better. I have asked you three times now why this shouldn't be discussed and you just will not directly answer.

I've given my views - about the thread positioning and about the travesty of abuse of minor children and adolescents - over and over.

And when your starting point is, "explain why you think x," when x is not what I think, it is not possible to explain (bc it doesn't exist).

Even though all child predators are overrepresented in schools vs general population, (no surprise there), the females are super disproportionately represented in schools

You misstate your proffered statistics.

First source:

I note first that the NIH paper refers to all sexual misconduct, not crimes so not quite on topic, but whatever (see my note below on this before going hair on fire). But onward: In the US, women comprise 77% of K-12 teachers and 56% of principals. Yes, there are maintenance people, likely mostly male, but they're probably offset by lunch ladies. Per the NIH paper, despite holding the supermajority of school positions (not the 50-50 general population representation), women were pegged for 15% of sexual misconduct. Please explain how that makes women "super disproportionately represented." That shows vast under-representation, not overrepresentation. Call it generously 70-30 women to men. 70% commit 15% of the sexual misconduct; 30% commit 85% of it. Who is disproportionately committing sexual misconduct now?

And to be clear (from your citation, emphasis added):

Educators who engaged in sexual misconduct were primarily male (85%), whereas students who reported experiencing educator misconduct were primarily female (72%). Rates of disclosure to authorities were very low (4%) and some sexual grooming behaviors like gift giving (12%) and showing special attention (29%) were reported.

Next:

Canadian estimate: 25% female in cases in which there is a single victim, and 5-25% across all subsets. 86% of all of them were teachers

And 95% of all multiple victim cases were by male offenders. Overall, 87% male offenders.

76% of all student victims were female.

Also: this Canadian report included public and private schools, not just public, which was what you asserted you were providing evidence for. 67% public, 26% Catholic/Christian, 7% non-religious private, rest other.

Third source, referencing Carol Shakeshaft's literature review from 2004:

Shakeshaft study (2004) that suggested it was 43% female in school settings

Did you read the Shakeshaft study? It was a survey of the literature, and along with the one suggesting 42.8% female committers of sexual misconduct (not just crimes, again - to be specific and on topic, not to dismiss sexual behavior that is wrong but does not rise to the level of a crime; both can be damaging, don't get it twisted, but apples to apples is closer to ideal), the other cited studies showed a vast range: 43%, 15%, 4%, 20%, 4%, 12.7%, and 4%. So stating "43%" is disingenuous and misleading.

Shakeshaft further stated (literally right after the table showing the above):

Researchers who study child sexual abuse report a “monopoly” by male abusers (Freel, 2003). Finkelhor (1986), in a review reports, 90 to 98 percent of females and 18 to 86 percent of males are sexually abused by a male. Analysts speculate that female abusers might be underreported if the target is male, because males have been socialized to believe they should be flattered or appreciative of sexual interest from a female. On the other hand, it is hypothesized that males might also underreport sexual abuse by another male, because of the social stigma of same-sex sex. The issue of male underreporting has more relevance to the number of males that are sexually abused than to the sex of the abuser.

Here's a more recent update on the Shakeshaft review, from 2022:

Academic teachers most often perpetrated the abuse (63%), followed by coaches and gym teachers (20%). Educators who engaged in sexual misconduct were primarily male (85%), whereas students who reported experiencing educator misconduct were primarily female (72%). Rates of disclosure to authorities were very low (4%) and some sexual grooming behaviors like gift giving (12%) and showing special attention (29%) were reported.​

Again, yes, 15% is higher than 10%, but that's 70% of a population committing 15% of the misconduct, and maybe 30% committing 85% of it.

Not sure what you were trying to prove here.

There's a quantitative view and a qualitative one:

Quantitatively, men - including male employees in schools - commit the over-over-overwhelming and extremely disproportionate amount of sexual crimes and misconduct against children and adolescents, the supermajority of which are female children and adolescents.

Qualitatively, every act of sexual abuse or sexual misconduct against a child is wrong.

If one's interest is in quantities, the focus should be clear. If one's interest is in qualities, then volume doesn't matter, so citing volumes is irrelevant.

 

[Sneed's Feed n Seed]

man those female pedophiles sure are bad and it sure sucks that society doesn't take them seriously because women are typically given leniency over men in similar cases and that sure makes me upset

If anger over this makes you want to defend m'lady instead of be angry about it, you're a retard.

Or maybe the documentation bothers you more than the crime?

Discourse about Tampa by Alissa Nutting (lol, that fucking name). I'll quote for you:

So, is Tampa a masterpiece or a piece of shock value trash? The answer depends on the reader. But one thing is certain: it demands to be talked about. And in a literary landscape that often shies away from the grotesque and evil when it comes to women, perhaps that’s exactly the point.

Well. Huh. What is the point? How about we talk about it? Allie says the subject matter demands to be talked about. Allie says "Alissa Nutting be freakin it." This is a published, freely spoken, position. This reflects what she thinks. Nobody's called her out. Nobody's called out the book.

This thread exists for a reason and your defensive apologia does for another. Want to talk about it or just leave your potshot, get your friends to leave emojis, and run? I'm gonna talk about it. Stay if you like.

Here's Allie on her own reading experience:

I am ashamed to admit the book made me horny. And I argue that is one of the main points of the book: not to just make you mentally uncomfortable, but physically as well. Much like real victims of assault cannot help their bodies reactions (ex. men getting erections during assaults) neither could I while reading these scenes.

Post-pubescent attraction exists across both sexes. Acknowledging that honestly is fine. Every culture in history has had to build structures around managing it precisely because the impulse is normal but the acting-on-it is destructive. It hurts the kid. Allie (or even Nutting, lol the name) could have had a frank reflection on biological impulses we need to deal with and control. Neither did this. The harm to the child could have been mentioned at all. It was not.

What Allie did is something else entirely. She wrote a public essay announcing her arousal, framed it as literary bravery, compared herself to assault victims to excuse it, categorized it alongside her romantasy reading habits, and published it on Substack for social credit. The essay isn't "here's an uncomfortable truth about human biology that we need to manage responsibly." The essay is "I got wet reading about a boy getting raped and I think that makes me a sophisticated reader."

Nutting wrote the scenes to be arousing. That's the authorial choice that matters. She didn't write clinical descriptions of abuse. She didn't write them from the victim's perspective showing damage. She wrote paragraphs of explicit, eroticized prose in the same register as adult romance fiction - nipple pinching, rough sex, sweaty torsos, mesh shorts on hips - from the predator's perspective, using the predator's desire as the narrative engine.

Her defense: "I'm showing you the predator's interiority to make you uncomfortable."
The Substack reviewer's response: "It made me horny."

Nutting wrote erotica about a woman raping a 14-year-old boy and wrapped it in a literary justification. The justification is: "I'm subverting the double standard by showing a female predator." The execution is: she wrote it hot. On purpose. For pages. The prose lingers on the boy's body the way romance novels linger on adult bodies. The arousal is engineered, not accidental.

There is a reason we're talking about female predators. This is the reason. And your defensive apologia is yet another.

 

[Lurker]

@Sneed's Feed n Seed that sure is interesting

but did you know

that 90%+ of sexual crimes are committed by men

 

[JambledUpWords]

Reminder that when women got the right to vote in 1920, age of consent was raised across the US, not lowered.

 

[Sneed's Feed n Seed]

@Sneed's Feed n Seed I am upset, because you said many things, that I cannot respond to

so I will not

and instead I'm going to counter attack and make it clear I and others like me are unreasonable, disruptive, and selfish

 

[powdered toast]

Please explain how that makes women "super disproportionately represented." That shows vast under-representation, not overrepresentation. Call it generously 70-30 women to men. 70% commit 15% of the sexual misconduct; 30% commit 85% of it. Who is disproportionately committing sexual misconduct now?

Firstly, thank you for actually adding to this discussion. Secondly, still nobody knows what the fuck your position actually is because you never articulated it clearly. Thirdly, I do not think you understand what I was saying. If schools were 100% women with no men, they should only be up to 20% of female offenders. Never up to 26%. That is still overrepresentation if in the general population they are about 10% of cases. 70% would not make up to 26%. They are not underrepresented in school settings. You keep arguing as if I'm saying females are a majority of predators.

No I didn't read the Shakeshaft study. I onky mentioned it bc it was mentioned in the Griffith paper and I had never heard that before. I didn't cite it here for that reason. I mentioned it was mentioned in the paper.

Quantitatively, men - including male employees in schools - commit the over-over-overwhelming and extremely disproportionate amount of sexual crimes and misconduct against children and adolescents, the supermajority of which are female children and adolescents.

Everybody already knows this and not a single person here has denied this. Is there a reason you think you needed to state this again?

Do you think female predators are more unreported than male predators? I think it's probably almost never reported when it's a male victim. And yes I already know male victims are the minority. You see, in this thread we are talking about the minority of cases.

 

[Among Us Gaming]

The thrust of this thread is the opposite of that: that it is supposedly not rare and not novel, and to highlight how evil and coddled women are

I would rather say, that the push is that while it is indeed rare and novel, it is still substantially greater than most normies believe. My own mother as an example, saw one of those articles the other day, and immediately suggested that both the boy was at fault for probably manipulating her and being horny, and her husband was at fault for not catching it stopping her. Most normies assume this sort of thing doesn't happen, and that when it does its fine. At least for myself, much of my postion on this matter are born of irl experiences.

I am not clear why pointing out defects in the OP is being interpreted as disagreeing with the underlying fact of child and adolescent sexual victimization, or that perpetrators or horrible people, or that no child or adolescent should be predated on.

Because it comes off as running interference and trying to downplay the experience of the victims. Its especially odious after we've already had someone try and argue that boys don't actually suffer an ill affects from being molested.