the internet has really scared a lot of people due to what they read online. But the truth still remains that this abuse rarely happens. 1% general population.

If you over watch your kids, track them at every time and locked them up. I tell you you are not doing them any good.

Children need to be free and enjoy their childish age.

Not forget that Research has shown that kids from this hard security houses are the worst wired kids.

well
Enjoy what ever you wish. But unlike me I gain freedom at age 2 and I cant find anything to regret over my child age.

Fun fun fun

Hmm talk about penetration (aka physical damage/trauma).... I thought lesbians use dildôs too.. Now, That I've seen with my two korokoro eyes.

Shollypopzz:


Argh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is why I said, not all male pedophiles penetrate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Remember this??


If not penetration, what is a male pedophile doing differently from a female pedophile??

.

Have I suggested anywhere that one would be doing something significantly different than the other in the absence of penetration? Please show me.

I'm going to assume this hypothetical female pedophile isn't fascinated with putting Love Machine in the a*ss of a child

Which is completely impossible for a male pedo*phile to do also, right?

ileobatojo:
.

Have I suggested anywhere that one would be doing something significantly different than the other in the absence of penetration? Please show me.

Then Ile, what was the point of the posts below?? You are confusing the heck out of me.

ileobatojo:

There are 2 ped*ophiles. One male, one female. You have to leave your child with one of them. Which would you pick?
Please pardon the highly disturbing hypothetical scenario. But I'm just trying to say that the issue is less about sexism but more about biology and potential for damage.

ileobatojo:

It is more physically damaging/traumatic to a child to be penetrated by a phallus than to be made to touch a vag*ina or kiss a boob.

fuzzywuzzy:

That analogy does not hold water in the context of this conversation.
Males and females are biologically different. Different hormonal makeup, different physiology, different preferences, likes and dislikes.
Admitting this does not make one sexist.
Apart from the fact that men have a higher proclivity to commit sexual abuse (because of their higher libidos and greater sexual needs), women are in an overall better position to be caregivers because they are naturally more intuitive and emotionally sensitive to the needs of children.

Huh??

I'm sorry, I thought you were a feminist. Discard my post.

Shollypopzz:


Then Ile, what was the point of the posts below?? You are confusing the heck out of me.

The point is that those posts are specifically referring to penetration. Something that I already explained.

By the way, you never answered the questions below. So we can finally squash your suggestion that absence of physical evidence means there was no physical trauma.

ileobatojo:


How does your link scratch physically damaging or physically traumatic?

Majority of raped women have no physical signs of injury. Are you saying that automatically means it wasn't physically traumatic?


If someone punches you but it leaves no mark, it wasn't physically traumatic?

Shollypopzz:

Huh??
I'm sorry, I thought you were a feminist. Discard my post.

What has feminism got to do with my post?
Hian.
I hope you are not implying that feminists deny the biological differences in both genders? The negative stereotypes misogynists have heaped on feminism are enough, no need to add that one to it.

fuzzywuzzy:

What has feminism got to do with my post?
Hian.
I hope you are not implying that feminists deny the biological differences in both genders? The negative stereotypes misogynists have heaped on feminism are enough, no need to add that one to it.

Feminism has nothing to do with your post but it has everything to do with mine.

If you believe that women are innately better caregivers, then this thread is not addressing you.

ileobatojo:
By the way, you never answered the questions below. So we can finally squash your suggestion that absence of physical evidence means there was no physical trauma.

I answered your first question. Look at my previous posts.

2nd question: I am not saying that. You are saying that by bringing up pen1ses in the first place.

Shollypopzz:

Feminism has nothing to do with your post but it has everything to do with mine.
If you believe that women are better caregivers, then this thread is not addressing you.

but. . . .but they are . . . . . .




***takes off boxing gloves and slinks out of thread disappointed***

Shollypopzz:

I answered your first question. Look at my previous posts.

Here's your previous post.

Shollypopzz:


Then, what is your point Ile?

I seem to be making assumptions in order to understand what you're trying to prove but I clearly I'm not helping matters.


Since my link scratched physically damaging. Now, I'm simply going to ask you, how is one act of child molestation by a gender more physically traumatic than when done by another gender??

You're saying that because your link shows that they often don't have physical signs of injury means they were not physically traumatized. So I'm asking, what about rape victims?

Shollypopzz:

2nd question: I am not saying that. You are saying that by bringing up pen1ses in the first place.

You're surprised that I brought up pen*ises in a topic centered around sexxual abuse?

ileobatojo:


Here's your previous post.

You're saying that because your link shows that they often don't have physical signs of injury means they were not physically traumatized. So I'm asking, what about rape victims?


You're surprised that I brought up pen*ises in a topic centered around sexxual abuse?

You could have taken a few seconds to check my posts and to confirm if I indeed correct my stance. Here, was my answer to you when you initially asked the question.

Shollypopzz:


Btw, my link does not scratch physical damage. It just shows that it is not actually as much of a problem. I specified the last paragraph for a purpose. It showcased a statistic of 5.5%

Yes, it's surprising. You brought that up to prove that male pedophiles can cause more harm( physical damage and truama) than female pedophiles. Hence, the disturbing hypothetical scenario - "if you have a male pedophile and a female pedophile, which will you choose?"

That link was to show you that physical damage wasn't much of an issue as you would like to think. Both male and female pedoph1les can cause physical trauma, so you have no point there.

Shollypopzz:


You could have taken a few seconds to check my posts and to confirm if I indeed correct my stance. Here, was my answer to you when you initially asked the question.



Yes, it's surprising. You brought that up to prove that male pedophiles can cause more harm( physical damage and truama) than female pedophiles. Hence, the disturbing hypothetical scenario - "if you have a male pedophile and a female pedophile, which will you choose?"

That link was to show you that physical damage wasn't much of an issue as you would like to think. Both male and female pedoph1les can cause physical trauma, so you have no point there.

No, that stat is not news or surprising to me at all. Also it doesn't mean what you're trying to claim it means. The stat states that it's only in 5.5% of cases that you would find physical evidence. So now we're back to you suggesting again that lack of physical evidence (only 5.5%) means there is no physical trauma. What about rape victims who also have no physical evidence typically. Were they not physically traumatized?

ileobatojo:


No, that stat is not news or surprising to me at all. Also it doesn't mean what you're trying to claim it means. The stat states that it's only in 5.5% of cases that you would find physical evidence. So now we're back to you suggesting again that lack of physical evidence (only 5.5%) means there is no physical trauma. What about rape victims who also have no physical evidence typically. Were they not physically traumatized?

Yes, they were Ile.

I am seriously tired of the back and forth, so I am simply going to ask you in simple abc's.

Do male pedoph1les cause more harm than female pedoph1les in the physical health of the child?
Do male pedoph1les cause more physical trauma than female pedoph1les?

If your answer to both question is No, then we can agree and discard previous posts.

Shollypopzz:



Yes, they were Ile.

Thank you. Now that we've squashed the notion that unwanted penetrative intercourse cannot cause physical trauma if there are no physical signs of injury, I rest my case.

Have a good night.

ileobatojo:


Thank you. Now that we've squashed the notion that unwanted penetrative intercourse cannot cause physical trauma if there are no physical signs of injury, I rest my case.

Have a good night.

Dodged my questions? Hopefully, that means NO.

I will in a few hours, you too.

Shollypopzz:

Dodged my questions? Hopefully, that means NO.
I will in a few hours, you too.

Didn't dodge them, just ignored them cause they are not the same as the point I am making in this thread; and the answer one way or the other doesn't negate my point.

If we're are going to start to introduce new dimensions into the discussion, there are many that I can introduce as well.

ileobatojo:



Didn't dodge them, just ignored them cause they are not the same as the point I am making in this thread; and the answer one way or the other doesn't negate my point.

If we're are going to start to introduce new dimensions into the discussion, there are many that I can introduce as well.

What point are you making on this thread, Ile? This is not a new dimension...........


In fact, this whole back and forth started because of this post.

ileobatojo:
There is a simple way to explain majority of the opinions on that thread.

There are 2 ped*ophiles. One male, one female. You have to leave your child with one of them. Which would you pick?

Please pardon the highly disturbing hypothetical scenario. But I'm just trying to say that the issue is less about sexism but more about biology and potential for damage.

Shollypopzz:


What point are you making on this thread, Ile? This is not a new dimension...........


In fact, this whole back and forth started because of this post.

It is a new dimension because your questions are alluding to psychological effects while I'm talking physical. Also your questions are related to long term effects while mine center mostly on short term effects with potential for long term physical damage in some cases.

ileobatojo:


It is a new dimension because your questions are alluding to psychological effects while I'm talking physical. Also your questions are related to long term effects while mine center mostly on short term effects with potential for long term physical damage in some cases.

What are the short term effects Ile? I wish you'll just state the point you're trying to make.

Shollypopzz:


What are the short term effects Ile? I wish you'll just state the point you're trying to make.

I already did, probably at least 5 times over. If you're still having a hard time, you may have to go back to my disturbing hypothetical question and answer it within yourself. I understand how disturbing of a question it is , but pretend you're forced at gunpoint to make a choice.

And fyi, I don't have a problem with male nursery teachers. My kid has been in a daycare center with a male teacher in his room (toddler room) for years and I've never once bothered or gave it a second thought. A male nanny though? Nope. Won't happen. But I'm not knocking anyone who'll hire them.

Heck, I can't even bring myself to use these one time unknown female babysitters with babysitting agencies, so I miss many events that I would have loved to attend because there's no one to watch the kids.