quote:
Originally posted by Darthhoob:
it just 'less common' for women i spose, or at least, they get found out less, who knows. i wasn't maternal before i got pregnant either and i didn't like kids tbh lol...but i wouldn't want any harm come to them either. i think people just think of sexual predators are being men..whether there be children involved or not.
i think what's also shocking is that a woman would get a lighter sentence than a man...they should be treated the same
I think it depends on what they do. I think it's safe to assume that 99% of sexual predators are men, the women involved in these things are generally 'enablers', ie, not actively involved in the actual abuse, but they either cover for the men or worse imo, procure the children involved for them. Personally I think that any man who is involved in anything like this should be chemically castrated and never allowed to leave a secure unit, as these men clearly have a serious natural sexual defect which I don't believe can ever be effectively treated. Whereas I think women involved in this should be jailed for as long as is humanly possible and never be allowed near kids again, as they don't generally derive any pleasure from the abuse, they are usually driven by the need to please men or by a callous greed. Don't get me wrong, I don't think women should get a lesser sentence just because they are women, all of these scumbags should rot forever as far as I'm concerned, but look at the public outrage over Myrah Hindley who did thankfully rot in jail until she died and then look at the amount of male child rapists and murderers who get out without any press coverage in 10-20 years. Sidney Cook was out in just 9 years. I understand the shock factor of a woman being involved but I just don't see why it is WORSE for a woman to be involved than a man.