Sunday, 17 January 2016


I am one of the few people able to discuss paedophiles without accusations being thrown at myself.  As a survivor of a catholic children's home, and a campaigner I have challenged 'them' in a courtroom.  The word paedophilia is so taboo that many use asterisks for fear their use of the word will see their laptops taken away. 

First of all, it should be established that the greatest risk to children lies within their own homes, and from people who know them.  That is a fact supported by all the statistics and known only too well by those who were sexually abused as children.  And, as I have said before, why the fixation on sexual abuse? The physical abuse of children is far more prevalent, it is equally, if not more damaging and in the worse cases ends with the death of the child.

Stranger danger is one of those far off risks, like  inadvertently falling off a cliff, that is, we really don't have to spend our daily lives worrying about it.  And if it gets to the point where we daren't go out or allow our children out either, a bit of perspective is required.  Those trying to fill every parents head with fear, are doing it for sinister, political motives. If someone shouts 'think of the children' everyone hangs their heads in shame and signs on the dotted line. 

Every government since time began have used a scary 'bogeyman' to keep the masses in check.  The enemy within, reds under the beds, vampires, monsters and the walking dead. The attack of the killer tomatoes (how could you George C. ? lol), invasion of the body snatchers.  There has to be a 'hidden' threat or there would be chaos.  

In the last century homosexuals were the outcasts.  Homosexuality was a taboo subject, ergo, out of legally enforced ignorance, this small section of society were ostracised and even imprisoned.  Homosexual men who were in positions of power lived with the constant threat of blackmail and exposure. 

Now the fear, for everyone, is being accused of possessing indecent images of children. And as these 'charges' are so broad and indiscriminate and based on hysteria, everyone is at risk.  Send holiday beach pictures to your family and friends and you could face charges of distributing child porn.  So ridiculous are these laws that a 17 year old girl was charged with child abuse against herself for sending a picture to her boyfriend taken when she was 16.  The majority of these underage images online are teenagers doing what teenagers do, yet for whatever reason the authorities are intervening and placing these kids on the Sex Offenders Register.  A cynic might suspect that they are deliberately boosting the figures on that Register to make the paedophile problem appear more endemic than it actually is.  The exchange of underage images is a strong argument for those who want to enforce law and order on the internet.  The simple fact is, the internet has little to do with the reality of child abuse.

 Unfortunately, discussion of paedophilia is always irrational, because it is such an emotive subject and any attempts at reason are shouted down because if you 'defend' paedophiles, you are clearly one yourself.  Because of this, we accept without question batshit crazy rules and regulations that have sucked all the joy out of taking pictures of our kids on a beach or in the bathtub.  Forget taking any snaps of your little cherub pulling funny faces in the school nativity play, only official pictures and videos (retailed by the school) will be available.  The assumption being that all, or part of, the audience want the pictures for disgusting reasons.  Reasons no-one would ever have thought of if they hadn't brought it up! Or, they are working on the Gradgrind basis that because of the actions of a few, many must be deprived. 

I see some are currently working themselves up into a frenzy over the availability of child sex dolls.  Seriously? lol.  They are already talking about banning and petitions.  Out of curiousity, has the availability of adult sex dolls led to rape, depravity  and the abuse of women anywhere?  Do people take them into work or on a train or involve them in an attack?  Has a sex doll ever featured in a sex crime?  How about cuddly toys with cute faces  that look like baby animals, should they be destroyed forthwith just in case?  Given the,'erm, let's say, odd choices of those with a penchant for inanimate objects, should vinyl be banned across the board?  How about Henry Hoovers, I have seen a very peculiar story about one of those this week, should they be banned?  

Those on the lookout for sexual deviancy probably see it all around them.  Why they are they so concerned about what others get up to in the privacy of their own homes, baffles me.  How does it affect them, or indeed their children? Violent active paedophiles, and let's differentiate between the violent active ones and the passive ones who spend their lives isolated and in cuckoo land and are of no danger to anyone. And they, make up the majority.  Everyone has sexual fantasies, even 'straight' people, that's why Anne Summers and S&M outlets are so popular.  Happily they do not act them out in the real world, because if they did, we might see a board room filled with executives in gimp suits.  Gawd forbid. 

The idea that a sex toy can trigger paedophiles to act out their fantasies is equally absurd.  It's like saying the Rampant Rabbit corrupted women, OK, bad example, lol.  The argument being used by the chastity belt wearers, is no different to that put forward by the clean up merchants since time began.  Do they honestly believe that a book, a sculpture, a painting, a film or a whoopy cushion will lead to Sodom and Gomorrah?  I feel a bit like Father Ted explaining the world outside the caravan to Father Dougal, 'Real', 'Not Real'. 

I despise this 'let's get the hanging tree ready' for paedophiles ideology, because it is based on pure ignorance and the stubborn refusal of those with closed ears and closed minds to acknowledge the statistics and the reality.  Why are we not seeing academics, rather than policeman, advising us on this vital issue?  The pathetic, socially inept, repentant paedophiles the media place in front of the cameras are not representative of the REAL problem, and it is disingenuous to say they are. 

The fact is, the strange men the MSM wheel out for the public stocks are dysfunctional misfits who don't have access to anyone.  The all too real and more cunning predators meanwhile, have wormed their way into a single parent households and are 'disciplining' the kids.  Others will have made a career for themselves that involves working closely with vulnerable children, usually childcare or child protection. 
Like those who appear on Jeremy Kyle and every preaching documentary, the misfits they parade before us are willing to blame all their problems on the weed, their bad mother or watching the Evil Dead.  They will say pretty much whatever the documentary maker wants them to say, especially if it fits the current political agenda. 

Whilst I agree that violent, predatory paedophiles should not be living in a regular society, I believe the same thing of murderers and psychopaths, whatever their sexual preferences.  And, back to statistics, the murderers and psychopaths far outnumber the predatory paedophiles.

Those calling for a ban on these dolls, have no understanding of human nature whatsoever.  Taking away a child's favourite toy will not stop them wanting it and it definitely won't make them behave any better.  Worse, it will make them become sly and it will make them resent you.  There is no way of enforcing your will on another, not even on a child.  You can cajole and persuade, but you cannot force.  Forcing has the opposite effect.  I actually hate the word ban, and I am increasingly finding myself hating those who use it.  What exactly would be the purpose of banning these dolls?  The only gratification I can see, is for those who want to make these unfortunate misfits suffer, and making people suffer for their sexual orientation, whatever it might be, is just plain nasty.   



  1. Ros, you wrote: "There is no way of enforcing your will on another, not even on a child. You can cajole and persuade, but you cannot force. Forcing has the opposite effect." Did you miss the hundreds of thousands of Catholic boys over recent decades forced to have sex with priests?

    1. No I didn't miss the thousands of catholic boys forced to have sex with priests, I actually LIVED in an environment where it went on, so your comment is beyond insulting.

    2. @13:44 To be fair, unprotected children CAN be forced.
      The commenter may not have intended to be insulting

  2. Interesting.

    I do agree with some of that but on some issues I think you are just plain wrong. e.g "The simple fact is, the internet has little to do with the reality of child abuse."
    Perhaps more on that later.

    You have a particular view, based at least partially on your own "abuse", which was by my understanding thankfully relatively mild and not accompanied by violence and threat.
    Or did I miss that post?
    Either way you are probably a natural survivor -many are not so resilient ....or open about it. Good for you on both counts :-)
    Sex is part of who we are and how we are judged/valued -trivial abuse/ inappropriate activity can have consequences far beyond the logical.

    Sexual interest in children seems surprisingly widespread. I too consider that 'management' of offenders AND potential offenders will have better results than rabid demonisation.

    The child sex dolls (yes with all 3 holes 'useable') is an interesting one. I take a practical view, but (unless you know different) there is no data on whether they might reduce or increase the risk to real children.

    On the one hand the provide a harmless outlet for desires and fantasies which already exist
    -On the other they are potentially a "gateway" or a "training aid" into real paedophilia and actual abuse. Sexuality being potentially fluid and partially a learned behaviour.

    I mean by "Child sex dolls" not the cheap inflatable semi-disposable items but primarily the say £500 up sex dolls which are very anatomically accurate (being originally silicone molded off living people/children) An important point is that the child models are not only easier to discretely store but, being smaller are usually about 1/2 to 2/3 of the price of an adult doll. Not just a gateway but a convenient gateway.

    My personal view is that child sex dolls should be available, but only to registered users who have sought counselling from their doctor or through a similar system. Paedophilia, it seems is a part of humanity and the human condition, but it is IMO rarely a 'victimless crime', even if the "sufferer" gets no further than viewing CSA on the internet.

    1. Mulling over your very enlightening reply JW, if I may be so bold as to call you Jersey Wheels. Back v.soon. :)

    2. I look forward to your views on the internet and child abuse JW, I am intrigued.

      As for the abuse I suffered, it ALL violence and threats - as it was for most of us. Our abuser liked boys and picked and chose at will. He was also a scout master, a mentor for troubled (male)teens and a pillar of the community so he had a good selection.

      I wasn't sexually abused, but I suffered at the hands of those who were trying to inflict their will on me through violence, threats and intimidation. Their agenda was to rehabilitate us to ensure we did not grow up to be like our parents. And they used the same diabolical physical and mental punishment methods as your average gulag.

      Bizarrely, the boys 'chosen' by this particular Psycho were envied by the rest of us. That's the kind of upside down, freaky world we were living in. Now, all these years on, my heart breaks for them because they were deprived of all the usual rites of passage, and because their vulnerable, gullible minds were filled with such horrors at so young an age. I fully understand why they cannot talk about, but you know what, I wouldn't urge them to. I'm afraid I'm also in opposition to Freud, I think dragging up past trauma is deeply damaging. And it has taken me a lot of time and heartache to realise that.

      But back to the point in part II!

    3. "But back to the point in part II!" ...I look forward to it

      RE the abuse of boys -I found the following film very educational

      It should be shown in schools?

      It may be disturbing because of your experiences.
      Take care.

    4. Part II. reply to JW.

      Many years ago I went to the Sensation Art Exhibition (the Tate iirc, it was famous, or should I say infamous, because it had a wall sized painting of Myra Hindley made of children's handprints. It made headline news because a protester somehow managed to throw a large tin of paint at it. During the kerfuffle that followed, I found myself going from an interested art enthusiast to a protester. I had seen the 3rd, or was it 4th, floor that contained obscene exhibits of young children doing things even the most psychotic mind would struggle to imagine, let alone mould and put on public display. It offended me on every level, and the last thing I remember is my date throwing me into the back of a black taxi and telling me to shut up! I even wrote a Mrs Angry letter to the Sun newspaper that they published :) I think I described the Exhibition as a Paedophiles Paradise, I was very naïve.

      Now, I am much, much older, and hopefully a little wiser. I understand that the artists were trying to draw attention to child abuse, they were not providing playthings for the perverted. And if they were, who cares?

      As time has shown, they were not replicated and sold in Woolworths and they offend the majority of us just as much as they always did. And that's as it should be.

      Whilst I am not comparing these toys to fine art (though who is to judge?), the idea that they are a gateway is debateable. Are the odd women who buy lifelike newborns (I watch many strange documentaries, lol) a risk to babies everywhere?

      I agree the err, 'holes' are a gross out, but is the quality of the sex toy really the issue? What if a build your own enthusiast were to stick a wig on a balloon or create a Michaelangelo statue, should they be deprived of all pliable raw materials? Where does it end? The banning of plastacine, dough and everything squidgy?

      I am actually delighted these 'things' are cheap, small and easy to hide away. Who wants to see that at someone's dining table? Happily most people keep their little foibles to themselves and as long as they are not hurting anybody real (not latex, I really don't care. Again, what are the links between sex dolls and violent crimes?

      Whilst the sex offenders are usually found to have a stash of porn on their computers and in their homes, so too does every other house on the street! Pornography doesn't trigger violent or deviant sexual behaviour, it's already there.

      Yes they are disgusting and an affront to our sense of decency and morality, but it is ridiculous to assume that banning, or forbidding certain items to certain people is a recipe for success.

      You argue that the sale of these dolls should be restricted to registered users. I just can't see anyone queuing up to go on that list, tbh, so effectively you are removing the target market, those who like to keep their weirdo desires to themselves. How many 'toys' or 'triggers' must you take away from an offender to 'cure' him of his lust for children? What if he stares at the anatomically correct naked cherubs on the walls of a church? Should they be forced to wear underpants or restricted to an approved few?

    5. Rosalinda , IMO you are labouring a whole bunch of points there.

      Of course it is "debatable". There are more opinions than there is credible data. psychology aside, probably no one even knows how many of these things have been shipped to the UK or Europe.

      But to home in on a couple of central points:
      Since when was £500 to £2000+ (from my basic research the other year) "cheap"

      Few people (youths & men predominantly) are going to spend that amount of money unless they are going to use the item regularly.

      The frustrated/adventurous buyer with say £600 in the bank to spend on a 'quality partner' has no choice but the child doll. The larger dolls are significantly more expensive.
      Even if the user does not start with any/a strong paedophilic inclination it does seem possible [likely even] that after enjoying a regular sex life with their ever willing child doll this will have opened [and cemented?] pathways in their brain.
      I see this as a very real danger. The user will know that they are shagging a piece of plastic and (unless it's plastic which turns them on) they will likely hunger for the real thing. Having sex with children will have so some extent "normalised" in their brain.
      One day when they are low or randy, a proportion of them will think "why not, I need it/I deserve it". Maybe 1%, maybe 30% ...there is no data(?) but we can DO SOME research or attempt basic logic or risk analysis.

      The plastic doll users are likely "losers" in the real world with real adults. With a little care they will likely find that seducing or forcing clueless youngsters is a whole lot easier than getting what they want from adults.

      You may be of the opinion that career use of child sex dolls has no effect on the user? Sorry, I don't buy it!

      Of course people are not going to be "queueing up to register".
      That is part of the point; it restricts the numbers of these POTENTIALLY dangerous "gateway" items.
      And as for those who cannot help themselves; it gives an outlet, and a mechanism by which they can seek help and a mechanism by which potentially dangerous people can be identified and if necessary monitored.

      Some determined and unrepentant abusers will of course head straight for real children. The only thing which is going to help them is castration or that "hanging tree" mentioned earlier.

    6. As you have mentioned several times JW, there is no data available, ergo your assumption that these dolls are a gateway to real attacks, is just that, an assumption. Where is the evidence to support it?

      The only comparison we have is adult sex dolls. Do those who purchase these latex female 'partners' go on to commit violent sex offences against women? Adult sex dolls have been around for decades, but I can't say I have ever heard of them featuring in the horrific crimes of serial killers and psychopaths who target women. If anyone knows different, perhaps they could let us know.

      The point I am trying to make JW, is that those who use images and toys have found ways in which to satisfy their anti social sexual desires without harming flesh and blood women and children. And as you said yourself, no-one cares how much they abuse a piece of latex.

      Labelling something a 'gateway' item doesn't make it true unless you have data and statistics to back it up. Are adult female sex dolls a gateway for rapists?

      To go from a toy to a child is a HUGE leap and one you are making without the evidence to back it up. You have entered the area of 'thought crime' and what they MIGHT do, not what they have done.

      Determined and unrepentant abusers will not waste their time with inflated plastic JW, they will be worming their way into homes and careers that will give them direct access to real children.

    7. Ros, we are not getting anywhere are we.

      Indeed 'data' is lacking. Hence my suggestion that studies should be done....!!!!

      It is easy to use flawed logic or to draw comparisons which are not valid.

      Fetishists aside it is likely that most users of adult sex dolls do so because they can't get a woman/partner.

      The justification being put forward for the unrestricted availability of child sex dolls is that it AVOIDS paedophiles from using living children.

      A critical difference IMO.

      As said, it would surprise me if a significant proportion of child sex doll enthusiasts do not hunger (or develop hunger) for living children ......just as a (overwhelming?) proportion of adult sex dolls users hunger for a living woman (btw. I don't think I accused them of being overactive rapists)
      So your point is what? Do you see no issues with adults having sex with children/prepubescents? -or is your main point the primacy of unrestricted sexual freedoms?

      "ergo" "thought crime" Now be fair Ros. In my very first comment I highlighted and lamented the probable lack of data and I proposed a way the those who 'need' ORIFICED child (or baby!) dolls could obtain them .....a way which MAY improve the safety of children. I even stated that it was "My personal view"

      I don't know for certain but I suspect that it is a no brainer:
      sex >>>> reward centre >>>> habit and hunger
      neuroscience not rocket science?

      You have a different view. You may be right and I may be wrong. Where is your evidence?
      In your comment you mention (again?) "inflated plastic".

      At the outset I specifically stated that "I mean by "Child sex dolls" NOT the cheap inflatable semi-disposable items...."

      There may be a similar problem with inflatable children but I have not looked into this and I suspect that they would spring a leak pretty quickly. Perhaps another reader with more experience could enlighten me!

    8. I really don't see the critical difference JW, looks about the same to me.

      I suspect we all (while we still have our mojos) hunger for sexual experiences that are outside our normal lives JW. I personally wouldn't mind being stranded on a desert island with Gerard Butler in his 300 get up, but I don't actually make any detailed plans to kidnap him. There is a line between fantasy and reality and the majority of us, even paedophiles, know exactly where it is.

      I am not claiming sex dolls lead to sex attacks, so what evidence do you want from me? I am asking if there are any links between their use and attacks on women, if there are, then you may be right.

      The quality of the sex toys is a moot point JW, a psychopath is a psychopath whether they are using a high end replica or an inferior copy from a market stall. Their intentions towards that piece of plastic are just the same. You are judging the issue by your own revulsion JW, seeing the more accurate toys as more offensive. The real issue lies with the actions and the intentions of the paedophile, not the toys they purchase.

      To suggest I see no issues with adults having sex with children is a low blow. I am a mother, and I have also had the unfortunate experience as a child, of being in the care of predatory perverts and sadists who made our lives a living hell. I have spent my life campaigning against child abuse. So no JW, lets be very clear, I am not advocating sex with children in any way, shape or form.

    9. "...lets be very clear, I am not advocating sex with children in any way, shape or form."
      Go sister! I'm right 'on side' there.

      RE "thought crime", maybe you are right.
      ...I had this mate who was arrested for a thought crime.

      He thought there weren't any cops watching.

  3. You are one sick puppy.

    If you can't see how absolutely wrong it is to produce child sex dolls for the purpose of abuse then I suggest you up your meds.

    Please do tell, in your expert opinion, which category of paedophile these items will find a market in? The, as you put it,violent types or the, passive who are 'no danger to anyone'. Would that be no danger because they are 'passively' only viewing child abuse images in the privacy of their own home, and as you tell us, other people's deviency's are no business of others?

    Yes, their are a few over the top reactions to innocent pictures but that does not excuse pandering to the vile practices, whether 'passive' or not of societies deviants.

    As you state it is impossible to impose ones will on even a child, I take you accept wholly responsibility for the alleged abuse you claim to have suffered and as you have written in the past about what a magnet for child sexual abusers you were, also accept you submitted willingly to that also?

    As for the innocent bath time pics. Perhaps your friend Ms Poulton can enlighten you on that subject. I recall you stating that 'Sonia does all the research for us and tells us what's what so that we don't have to wade through everything'. (Presumably because our tiny minds can't possibly form a considered opinion from information available to Us). I recall she was outraged by an innocent pictures of Perez Hilton's face being visible next to his toddler son's whilst they were in the bath.

    I don't know, these people who want the 'hanging tree' readied.

    1. I wondered how long it would be before I would be accused of being 'one sick puppy', lol.

      As for the abuse of these dolls, is it possible to abuse latex. Tis true I have mistreated several pairs of washing up gloves, not shown them the respect they deserve, but is it really abuse?

      Just as I don't care who buys dildos, strap ons, vibrators etc, and definitely don't want to know what they do with them when they get home, I feel much the same about these dolls.

      As for the passive viewing of abuse images, thousands if not millions of people view abuse images of women (and indeed men) being tied up, thrashed and raped. S&M has a huge market worldwide, and all the laws since time began have never been able to stamp it out.

      Following your line of thinking, all those with a penchant for watching kinky sex will probably go on to shackle their boss/secretary or a visiting plumber to the nearest 4 poster and give them a darn good thrashing. Should all those who bought, or heaven forbid, went to see, 50 Shades of Grey, be arrested forthwith? (just in case?)

      Where is the evidence that watching abuse images leads to violent crime? Just as horror films do not turn psychopaths into serial killers, you cannot pin the 'blame' onto the viewing of an image or a single inanimate object. If 50m people see a violent movie and ONE comes out and goes on a killing spree, should the movie be banned, bearing in mind 49.999m didn't?

      What if a 'deviant' drew a child's face on a balloon and named it, should we ban balloons in case other deviants do the same? As I mentioned in my original post, odd people can make anything sexual, even a hoover.

      As for my convent experience. I wasn't sexually abused, the ex jusuit, opus dei psychopath who had charge of our care, liked boys. I suffered physical abuse, he and the equally psychotic nun were very into punishment, a bit like you actually, they were intent on breaking my will. And that is the bit you have confused with responsibility. Despite all the punishments I received, they never persuaded me around to their way of thinking.

      I have seen folie a deux (madness shared by two) first hand, possibly why I am so intrigued by the McCann case. When you put two psychopaths together, they really are twice as evil.

      Totally unrelated, lol, Sonia and I are similar only in that we each cling onto our individuality. I think being acknowledged in OUR own right for whatever we do is the goal of feminists everywhere.

      I am sure Sonia and I would have a long debate on this topic, if we had the time, lol, but should hasten to add, I don't choose my friends on the basis that they should agree with me. As if! I like people who are interesting, not dull.

    2. You just don't get it do you? Your ridiculous analogy of a face drawn on a balloon borders on insanity. Trying to joke about abusing an inanimate object is to abuse all the children these vile dolls are meant to represent.

      Producing a doll, in the image of a child is abhorrent to all right minded individuals.

      You have completely, as usual twisted my words to suit your own agenda. At no point did I say these dolls would encourage paedophilia although I wouldn't be surprised if those yet to act on their sick urges would feel such items actually sanctioned their perversion and somehow legitimises it.

      Nor did I state watching mildly masochistic material turns viewers into the Marquis de Sade. I do however think watching hardcore stuff can desensitise those already open to the idea of violent acts because it depicts extreme violence without consequence.

      I don't know where you get the 'trying to break your will' from? Another example of your usual martyr complex?

      With regard to your personal experience of abuse you now state you weren't sexually abused and I am glad you were spared that however I do recall you writing previously about your experiences of sexual abuse outside the convent. Are you now saying this never happened?

    3. @01:40 Did you really mean to write all that?
      Are you able to disagree with Rosalinda (or me?) in a more polite manner?

      The idea of sex dolls is a little disturbing of itself, but when it comes to child sex dolls (particularly prepubescent) there are probably few of us who do not feel queasy. However the whole issue and the ramifications need to be thought through with the head and not the gut.

      I would rather that a billion+ bits of plastic get "abused or raped" than one child. As stated above however I see child sex dolls as more of a gateway into real abuse than as some sort of preventative measure. The businessmen are expanding into a niche and manufacturing child sex dolls for a profit and not giving them away, which makes their claims of "public service" ring rather hollow. Whether it is PR or their own rationalisation -it still sounds like cr@p.

      I must take exception to your paragraph:
      "....I take you accept wholly responsibility for the alleged abuse you claim to have suffered and as you have written in the past about what a magnet for child sexual abusers you were, also accept you submitted willingly to that also?"
      We have our own recollections (did I remember wrong?) of what Rosalinda has written in the past, but that looks like an uncalled for ad homonym attack. Even if we search out the relevant posts we only have the recollections Rosalinda has chosen to share, and this is unlikely to be the full story. I am just glad if her experiences have not been too unpleasant or damaging. Even if they were 110% "up for it" you are on very shaky ground blaming the child given their knowledge base, experience, the nature of consent and perceived options. There are reasons why a child cannot 'consent' to sex in the eyes of the law.
      Predators and opportunists take advantage of vulnerability. Whether the are (or wish to identify) as a victim is down to them and the passage of time.

      Rosalinda has her opinion and I can respect that.

    4. 14.11 Yes I did mean to write all that.

      I was not the one who wrote'you cannot force your will onto anyone, even a child' and even if I have taken it out of context it is still a stupid statement to make in a piece about paedophilia.

      Rosalinda does indeed have her opinion and her opinion is that she is right and reserves the right to reinterpret her writing when challenged.

      I have just noticed she has written that she is glad these dolls are small because she doesn't want to see them in people's homes!? Seriously? Roz, do you think you are being 'out there' & 'radical'? A 'free thinker'? You are not, you are being very offensive to all victims of sexual abuse.

      The point being missed is that there are no 'passive' paedophiles and I would love Roz to explain what she means by that statement.

      Whilst writing I would also like to understand her thinking about not being able to legislate against deviants?

      By that logic, it is pointless legislating against any crime. Murder is illegal but it doesn't stop it. The penalties may however make some think twice about it. Does Roz advocate murder & torture dolls to allow the 'passive' homicidal maniacs an outlet? Perhaps realistic fluffy cats & dogs for those who like to abuse animals?

      This is an ill thought out argument made by Roz which when put up to the light, reads as it should. A collection of ridiculous, dangerous and an apology for poor misunderstood child abusers.....unless you start reading her responses then she does a volte face and states such individuals disgust her.

    5. Hi Anonymous @ 19:36

      Personally I agree that Ros has "FCUKed up" with some of her statements. It happens we all do it.
      RE "volte face" -perhaps, or it could be she has changed the emphasis or stated a different part of her [complex] 'gamut' of opinions?
      If Ros has errr... 'modified' her opinions, then GOOD. That is one of the purposes of a rational discussion (so PEACE's super-emotive but let's not give contributors a hard time....)

      In my first comment I said ".....(unless you know different) there is no data on whether they might reduce or increase the risk to real children.

      [A]-On the one hand the provide a harmless outlet for desires and fantasies which already exist
      [B]-On the other they are potentially a "gateway" or a 'training aid' into real paedophilia and actual abuse. Sexuality being potentially fluid and partially a learned behaviour."

      I (and probably you) judge that [B] is operative and therefore a priority ....Ros states she is stuck firmly to [A]

      Beyond that we are all probably united by more than we are divided :-)

  4. To a degree I agree with you ,however I can't see that it's right to sell these dolls indiscriminately ,I agree as part of either psychiatric management system or as a offender rehabilitation therapy it might be ok but I'll be honest it makes me very uncomfortable as if selling a doll is in some way a sick marketing device to convince us it's a good idea and I fact the manufacturers are ' helping' society.

    1. I don't think they should be sold off the shelf in Tesco's, but perhaps in the same undercounter, plain brown envelope fashion as other sex toy paraphernalia. And in fairness, most of it would make us very uncomfortable. Tbh, I find the idea of giving offenders sex toys under psychiatric management even more skin crawling.

      I think it is important to differentiate between fantasy and reality. Probably 99.9% of us do not act out our sexual fantasies in the outside world. If we did there could be an orgy in the local park every Sunday alongside the Salvation Army band. We learn at a very early age what is or isn't appropriate behaviour.

      The people who buy this, err, equipment, are fully aware of how anti social their intentions are. They are not likely to try them out in MacDonalds for example. They protect their anti social behaviour by keeping it to themselves. They would be just as mortified at being caught as a government minister in a basque, or a PM with his dangly bits in a pig's head. Making it official and giving it a research label will never make it sound any better.

      No legislation in the world will stop people having bizarre and deviant sexual desires. Without putting CCTV in the nation's bedrooms and the backseats of cars, it would be completely unenforceable.

      Nobody likes paedophiles, we get that, but this blind hatred, verging on hysteria, makes any reasoned discussion impossible. And I am not aiming this at you 06:56 btw, just expressing my frustration at the inept way this problem is handled by the 'authorities'. I fear for the innocent men who are being marched off and hounded and who's lives are being destroyed by this medieval way of thinking. And it's not just the lives of the individuals, it is their families too.

      And we all vulnerable to facing charges of possessing underage images if we have kept so much as a holiday snap of our kids in bathing suits. And I confess, I took and have kept scrumptious, naked pics of my own precious tots. They were just so cute and cuddly I could have served them up on a plate a la Mark Twain! Our kids are beautiful, when did it become wrong to acknowledge that?

      Arresting people for the images they have on their computers is a bit like 'thought' crime. There is a presumption that those who view certain types of images 'will go on' to commit a violent crime. Where is the evidence to support this? Do those who watch and play 'Grand Theft Auto' go on to become car thieves for example?

      What is the connection between viewing underage images of children in different states of undress and paedophilia? Children in different states of undress are all around us, if that is what we are looking for. They are not confined to the internet. And cunning, active paedophiles know exactly where to find them, the real thing that is, not the image or the toy.

      Persecuting a small section of society for the unholy thoughts they have in their heads, that they do not act on, is illogical. In fact it is quite cruel. They are tormented souls already and taking away their toys leaves only the real thing.

  5. Why would anyone want to discuss PAEDOPHILIA online with complete strangers?

    1. It would appear that between 1 in 5 and 1 in 20 children are sexually abused.
      This makes the discussion of PAEDOPHILIA rather important

    2. Thank you 22:31, I too find Dave Bottomley's statement rather odd. It is the taboo label applied to this subject that makes reasoned discussion impossible.

    3. For those who do not want to put their hands over their ears and go LA-La LA-La LA-La LA-La.......
      There are now two informative videos to watch:

      Being taboo, protects the abusers and their activities.
      Taboo = hidden

      There are of course fare greater dangers to children
      like traffic ....but both parents and children are educated about that.

    4. Perhaps Anonymous18 January 2016 at 22:31 and Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton19 January 2016 at 10:55 should read what I said properly this time.

      To help you I will point out " online with complete strangers"

    5. "online with complete strangers" tends to reach a wider audience.

      So [please] your point is....?

      Have you discussed these issues with friends?
      How did it go?

      A lot of friends are not ready for these topics.

  6. In my language there is a saying like you can't compare apples with pears. Don't know if that exists in english. In my vieuw you are doing exactly that. You are comparing the consenting sexuality between adults with the sexuality of a pedophile with a not consenting child. To give you an example: You approve child porn for paedophiles, explaining that there is also adult porn for adults. Now, sorry to be so direct, but you seem to have a very simple mind - you can't differentiate.

    And my hairs really went like electrocuted when I read your last paragraph:

    "What exactly would be the purpose of banning these dolls? The only gratification I can see, is for those who want to make these unfortunate misfits suffer, and making people suffer for their sexual orientation, whatever it might be, is just plain nasty."

    Oh dear... that is "plain nasty"! or just plain ignorant. You really seem to be the sort of type who cares more for the abuser than for the victim, well as long as the victim is not you of course.

    1. 00:23 Where did I say I approve of child porn for paedophiles? I actually find the ideas of Ray Wyre and other so called 'experts' repulsive on every level. I would personally cut off the dangly bits of anyone who used a child for grotesque photography or filming. However, I can differentiate between those MAKING the images and those viewing them. A bit like your apples and pears analogy.

      You are using the hysteria surrounding this subject to accuse me of caring more for the abuser than the victim. That is pure supposition on your part - as an adult who suffered horrendous physical abuse as a child, do you honestly believe I am on the side of the abusers? Bearing in mind that I actually brought my abusers to a Court room and challenged them directly?

      Please don't label me as a 'type', I am an individual attempting to discuss this subject using reason and logic. By introducing hysteria and implying that I am a paedophile defender you are effectively trying to shut the discussion down, the usual tactics of those who know their arguments do not stand up to scrutiny.

      Those strange odd bods and misfits who lock themselves away in their bedrooms to satisfy their bizarre sexual needs with images and toys are not the greatest threat to children. The greatest threat to children comes within the home and from people who know them.

      Persecuting and hounding socially inept misfits with learning difficulties, does nothing whatsoever to protect children from abuse, because the paedophiles they select to pillory have little or no access to children.

      Cunning, active, paedophiles move in with single parent families or work in environments where they have limitless access to vulnerable children. Over 50% of the prison population are careleavers who were sexually and physically abused as children by the 'authorities' who had care of them.

      If you genuinely care about the victims 00:23, you would be focussing on the real perpetrators of these crimes and not the mythological ones created by those with very sinister motives.

  7. You should add two letters to the title of your discourse: IR...

    1. I don't get that 00:51, if it something disgusting can someone tell me.

    2. I think 00:51 is saying add IR to the word rational to read irrational..that's how I see it anyway ??

  8. Rosalinda: I'm clearly in disadvantage in starting to discuss or argument with you, because English is not my language and there is also a big risk of misunderstandings. Like having called you a "type" instead of "type of person"? I know I've been direct with my words, I might have gone to far on the personal level, but I didn't want to be irrespectful.

    I admit that I have a strong opinion about Pedophilia, I thought a lot about it. And I completely came to the conclusion that it shouldn't be allowed any form of films, dolls, etc. which satisfies the needs and phantasies of pedophiles. A child is vulnerable. We adults should protect a child, his image and his dignity. Any form of pictures, films, dolls, etc. produced and marketed by adults, destroys in my vieuw the dignity of a child. Just think about what a child would think about pedophiles who uses, and the world of adults who produces children dolls with holes... If I had known this as a child, I think I would have become very bad feelings towards adults, I would have felt very vulnerable, very unprotected, I would have lost my trust and faith in adults. And I don't think that's histerical.

    I hope I made my point and opinion understandable. To put it simple: I care about the image and dignity of children but not about the phantasies and needs of pedophiles. I don't care what pedophiles phantasizes as long the phantasies don't get real. If the pedophile thinks he needs a doll, then I don't care if he gets creative and makes something alike out of material he finds in his home or in a tinker shop. But I care and am definitly strong against a world of adults, serving the phantasies and needs of pedophiles.

    I don't remember if it was you or a commentator who compared this pedophile matter with legalizing drugs. This two things can't be compared or put in a relation. Because it can never be a question of legalizing pedophilia...

    As to my other post with the two letters "I and R": I meant that you change the word "rational" in the title of your discourse into "irrational". That comment also wasn't nice of my part and I can understand when you perceive me as somebody with whom is it not possible to discuss this issue any further. You might be right.

    I understand that you have been abused as a child phisically, not sexually but certainly also psychologically. I feel empathie for that and I know that you too care about victims having endured the same as you. But maybe Rosalinda, if you had been abused by a pedophile in your childhood you might not have that kind of understanding for their needs as you do today. I don't think you would throw the deviant matter of pedophilia into the same fruitsalad of natural or more or less deviant but still consenting adult sexuallity. In relation to consumables like porn, dolls, etc. you did compare these two groups somewhere along your comments.

    But finally you surprised me showing my comments. It shows that you allow other opinions even if they are critical about your owns. I know, I went personally with you and I apologise, but I admit that I still don't go along with your way of thinking and will leave it there. There is a saying in english I like very much because it is so useful and brings every fruitless discussion or contradictory argument to a somehow acceptable finish for both sides: "We agree to disagree".


    an ordinary and not abused middleaged woman

  9. Many thanks for your very thoughtful and sensitive reply 15:41, you have certainly raised many points that have struck a chord with me. Your English is brilliant btw, I wish I had the skills to write so well in another language!

    We seem to be on the same page, in that you, like myself, don't really care what people, even sexual deviants, get up to in their own homes.

    Your issue lies with 'pandering' to paedophiles by allowing these sex aids to go on sale. Be assured I consider it just as yucky as you do, but I accept that it is beyond my control. A lot of companies and corporations make a lot of money in morally contemptible ways, Coco Cola in Columbia and India for example where they are stealing the natural resources of the indigenous people and using right wing militia to protect their investments.

    The sex dolls are products like any other, and are subject to supply and demand, if there is a demand, some enterprising soul will provide the supply. That's how capitalism works. There are niche markets for almost everything and there is very little any of us can do about it. As you are probably aware, the banning of anything usually leads to the black market and criminal activity.

    I actually find the idea of so called 'experts' supplying convicted paedophiles with child pornography and sex toys absolutely repulsive. It is as if they are being rewarded for their crimes.

    Meanwhile, denying those who fight their urges and use images and sex aids rather than flesh ad blood children makes no sense, because once all the images and toys are removed, all they have left is the real thing.

  10. Hello Rosalinda

    Thank you for your reply. We seem to feel the same way about it, but still think differently.

    I clearly understand your point: "Meanwhile, denying those who fight their urges and use images and sex aids rather than flesh ad blood children makes no sense, because once all the images and toys are removed, all they have left is the real thing."
    This is a strong argument and it persuades someone to think that it will get children spared from being abused. But do we really know that for sure? What abot those pedophiles whos appetit for the real thing gets stimulated and they go activ? It would definitly be one child to much.
    Maybe there is just no formula to distract pedophiles from doing what they shouldn't do. In fact, I do think it has mainly to do with the character and sanity of mind to be able to control themselves. An antisocial character or insane mind who wants the real thing will try to take it no matter how many pictures, films, dolls he gets supplied with. The same problem we have with men raping women. Women still get raped although there is plenty of things to satisfy the phantasies and prostitutes to go. Somehow I just can't believe that a potential abuser can be stopped through fleshless material.

    It was interesting to share thoughts with you.

  11. Cristobell said "I don't think they should be sold off the shelf in Tesco's, but perhaps in the same undercounter, plain brown envelope fashion as other sex toy paraphernalia. And in fairness, most of it would make us very uncomfortable. Tbh, I find the idea of giving offenders sex toys under psychiatric management even more skin crawling"

    By offering paedophile 'sex toy paraphernalia' in the same manner (brown bag undercounter the same as adult toys) you are essentially normalising the act of paedophilia or worse still, downgrading it to a harmless 'man in dirty rain mac' sketch seen in 1970's comedy shows. Yet, you find the idea of professionals doling out the same sex aids even more distasteful.

    I don't personally agree with either.

    The issue here, which you seem to have missed from the previous poster is that children should not be objectified.. Children should not be sexualised. Children should not be sexually abused - be they plastic or human. A 'doll' is representative of that.

    By 'allowing' child dolls as sex aids you are inadvertently condoning all of the above.

    I am not so sure your comments/opinions are that well considered.

  12. Anonymous 20 January 2016 19:55

    "...children should not be objectified.. Children should not be sexualised. Children should not be sexually abused - be they plastic or human. A 'doll' is representative of that. By 'allowing' child dolls as sex aids you are inadvertently condoning all of the above."

    This is so brought to the point! Bravo!

    1. I can only agree.

    2. Some people seem to labour under the illusion that the more they hate paedophiles, the straighter and more normal they will appear. Their desire to torture and string up perverts is a measure of their deep love and compassion for children. And worse, anyone who doesn't want to join in with the smashing of paedophiles' skulls, must by a process of elimination, be child haters and probably paedophiles themselves.

      That children should not be objectified, sexualised etc is kind of stating the obvious - it will always get a round of applause and a bravo. But it's a bit like saying terrorists shouldn't go into crowded cafes and shoot the customers - we know it isn't right, but it happens anyway.

      Trying to understand why people behave the way they do, and looking for ways and means to prevent their behaviour hurting real kids, does not equate to condoning their behaviour and it certainly doesn't mean that I am advocating sex with children.

      The best and possibly only way in which we can protect our kids is to educate them! Just as a mummy tiger will teach her cubs everything they need to know to survive in this world, we should be doing the same with our kids.

      We cannot physically remove all the hazards they will encounter in this life, ergo we must teach our kids how to handle them, themselves, we can't be with them 24/7 for ever more. Children who are strong, confident and self assured, will not fall prey to the maladjusted creeps they will encounter in EVERY area of their lives, not just the internet btw.

      Whilst we all agree these dolls are disgusting on every level, they are a distraction from the real abuse suffered by hundreds if not thousands of children in their own homes. Kids who are regularly returning from school to beatings, food deprivation and unspeakable cruelty.

      It is strange how those who are incandescent with rage about these bizarre sex toys, have little, if any, interest in improving the lives of kids living in poverty and dangerously dysfunctional families. Hanging the local misfit/ outcast from a tree or banning the production of creepy dolls, won't do anything to assist these children in need, whatsoever.

    3. "The best and possibly only way in which we can protect our kids is to educate them! Just as a mummy tiger will teach her cubs everything they need to know to survive in this world, we should be doing the same with our kids."
      Yes, but education is difficult. Particularly when balanced with preserving what remains of innocence and trust. Your tiger analogy is unfortunate seeing as they are endangered (uncontrolled 'predation' etc.)

      "Children who are strong, confident and self assured, will not fall prey to the maladjusted creeps they will encounter..."
      I disagree. imo ALL children are vulnerable. They can all be overpowered and forcibly touched up or raped. This seems mercifully rare but will suffer from some of the same under-reporting an in assaults on adults.
      The outright rape is a side issue. The point I would make is that children are undeveloped or developing adults. Some find it disturbing to the point of taboo but children have all the same bits (excluding breasts). these bits are not entirely non-functional. They work in the same way as do an adults - they are probably less functional but more sensitive. Press button A (with appropriate sensitivity) and physiologically you get result B. Children are imbued with curiosity and this curiosity extends to sex. It is striking how may convicted paedophiles say just how easy it is to seduce children. Thy spot the vulnerability and choose the pressure or enticement which will work best.

      This seems counter intuitive but, after all, the natural function of children is not as icons-of-innocence. What they are is survival machines, programmed over millennia.

      This is disturbing but it explains the otherwise incomprehensible reality.

  13. Why would anyone want to discuss paedophilia online with strangers asks Dave upthread? An interesting question but then is it a subject better discussed face to face with friends? Not sure really. However what we DO know is that the McCanns and their friends think it is quite normal to have a chat about paedophiles with a stranger. It's written in Kate's book. The stranger approaches them as one of McCann team is using a video-recorder to film the stranger's child playing mini-tennis. So disturbed is the man by the McCann group's behaviour that he approaches them and tells them that what they are doing (filming his child) is making him uncomfortable. With typical Team McCann duplicity this sinister and suspicious event is then whitewashed and spun to the extent that they claim the stranger told them he felt like a dirty old man because he was filing his child.

    No Team McCann! It was you who were behaving like dirty old men which is why a complete stranger came up to you and remonstrated.

    The Madeleine McCann case has paedophilia written all over it. That hideous group of doctors - especially Gerry McCann and David Payne - should be exposed for what they are. Perverts and corrupt to boot. The Fund is a fraud and a disgrace. None of the group should have any affiliation with any organisation that purports to help find missing children. That Kate is an ambassador for the Missing organisation is an abomination.

    1. @ Anonymous21 January 2016 at 12:33

      the fact that your post remains here after 8 hours says a lot about you and also about Ros.

    2. great post @12:33.

  14. I'm becoming the impression, that you think that people like me, who are completeley against the sexualised image of children must be per se pedophile haters. Or worst, you seem to think that because people hates pedophiles, they want to castigate them, by denying them sexual images of children. No, neither way!

    Do I hate Pedophiles? yes and no. There is a big range between them. There are those who are completely aware of their deviant attraction. Who suffers and struggles with themselves. They know exactly that they would harm a child, if they wouldn't control themselves. They are desperate and seek help for example under this link: For those I feel some sort of empathie. But for all others, who don't care, can't or don't want to control themselves, (even think that it is only a question of time till society accepts their deviation as it accepts for example homosexuality today...), where their abuse goes from molestation to rape, kidnapping and even to murder, my feelings towards them goes naturally from rejection, to strong rejection, to hate. Don't you think that's normal Rosalinda?

    Finally and with all respect, I don't like the way you handled this issue. I thought your discourse was due to the actual controversy about child dolls. But you distract from risks, when you argument that there is a bigger danger with pedophilia within the family and that we just have to educate the children because we can't protect them for 24/7. You should write another discourse, because that's something different. That would not be about the sexualising image of children, it would be about real children and how we can protect them from being sexually abused. And no, it won't be child dolls...

    1. 15:41, I agree with most of what you say, and believe me, I feel the same rage as you do. I hate any sort of violence 15:41, but when I saw the face of Ian Huntley (vile murderer of 2 little girls in Soham, UK), the urge to kill him overwhelmed me.

      The reason I broadened the issues 15:41, was to get the issue of these sex dolls into perspective. The chances of a child being abducted and murdered by a stranger is miniscule, less than the chances of winning the lottery. The danger to our children is all around us, cunning paedophiles find ways and means in which to get access to real children. They are not hiding away in their bedrooms satisfying their needs with pornography and sex aids, they are living and working among us.

      I wish I did have a quick fix solution to the problem 15:41, but the only effective way in which to protect our children is to educate them. More urgently, we should educate the parents.

      Too many young women do not have their mums, their nans, their aunts etc around them need REAL advice, the kind of stuff that is politically incorrect for textbooks. I might even write a 'guide' myself.

      It's not just women who are missing out on the benefit of elders' advice, many young men miss out on the benefit of a strong, male role model, the guidance of a father.

      I have worked in many different environments and careers, and almost everywhere, I have met women whose children had been abused by their partners.

      I would actually put parenting and life classes on the National Curriculum 15:14. The way society is evolving, many of the good old traditions have been lost. The population is far more mobile and new parents rarely have the family support networks that their parents and grandparents had.

      I think 'Sure Start', (a scheme brought in by the last Labour Government) was quite brilliant imo, it was reaching out directly to young parents. And the reality is there are a lot of young women moving from partner to partner completely oblivious of the risks to their children.

      Unfortunately, the sexualisation of children is all around us. The young mums are letting their kids dress up and the kids are loving it. They are not really responsible for the way in which other people then perceive them. A very small minority of adults see them as sexual, happily the majority don't.

      With regard to those who MAKE child pornography using real child, I would never give them a minute's peace for the rest of their lives. The authorities imo, should be focussing on the suppliers. The present approach is like tackling the drug trade by arresting all the users.

      Please forgive me 15:41, if I sometimes come across as a trifle brusque, I am usually just being a smartass and smiling as I write the words. :)

  15. Ros says "Please forgive me 15:41, if I sometimes come across as a trifle brusque, I am usually just being a smartass and smiling as I write the words. :)"

    Are you for real Ros - this specific blog is about paedophilia and you are a smartass and smiling as you write about it????

    1. @20:29Chill tiger.
      If you didn't laugh you would cry!

      We should all be less "brusque" at times.
      There is probably an element of 'smartass' to all who share their opinion online

    2. Some look for sexual connotations in everything 20:29, I look for humour.

  16. Believe me Rosalinda, I understood that you wanted to put it into perspective.

    Now forgive me to be a smartass myself. I took some quotes of yours and commented them:

    "The danger to our children is all around us, cunning paedophiles find ways and means in which to get access to real children. They are not hiding away in their bedrooms satisfying their needs with pornography and sex aids, they are living and working among us." Then for what allowing this kind of objects?

    "Unfortunately, the sexualisation of children is all around us." Then why not start to defend their image?

    "The authorities imo, should be focussing on the suppliers" Here we are on the same page again.

  17. I don't think it is a matter of 'allowing' these objects 21:25, more a case of there being no practical way to prevent them. People have made objects from raw materials since time began, and I can't think of a single example where banning anything has actually worked.

    How do we defend the image of children? I personally would encourage kids to be kids, to get out playing in the woods and parks and to explore the world around them, as most of my generation did. Life is so much more than a laptop screen, spray tan and false eyelashes!

    Happily, most of us do not see kids as sexual in any way 21:25, even when they have got hold of the contents of our makeup bags or run around naked in the house because they refuse to put any clothes on. They are not sending out sexual messages, they are just being kids.

    I find it bizarre when people talk about the sexualisation of children, because it is coming from them, not the kids. They are the ones who see something perverted in a child eating ice cream (one of the more creepy threads on CMoMM) or wearing bright blue eyeshadow, the rest of us don't!

    Sexualisation is similar to art 21:25, it is in the eye of the beholder. The Moral Majority as the banning brigade used to be known, focus their lives on finding things (other people do)that offend them. They don't try to fix themselves, they try to fix the world around them, image by image.

    How do you tell an excitable young mum who is spray tanning her 4 year old and dressing her up in spandex that she is objectifying her child? That there are creepy people out there who get turned on by a toddler in high heels? Should the blame lie with the mother and child, the makers of the spandex or the weirdo who is in desperate need of some therapy?

    It really is only a tiny minority who see children and their photographic images as sexual 21:25, yet somehow this minority view has permeated our society to such an extent, that keeping pictures of our kids growing up could see us face criminal charges.

    I find it so sad that society has so readily bought into this creepy idea that people take photographs of children for sexual reasons. And I was horrified last year when a foreign waiter was almost lynched by an angry mob of (British) tourists, incensed that he had spoken to their kids! Lets call it the McCann Effect.

    I think the best way to defend our children's image, would be to use Sanity as a starting point, throw in a bit of reason and logic and we might get somewhere!

  18. Is it us "normal" adults now, who are perverted, because we perceive pedophile material in the image of children as sexual?

    I doubt we will ever get anywhere. Maybe it's due to my logic and reason, but to keep my sanity, I will start by typing a ending point.

    1. Agree. Cristobell's knowledge and understanding of child sexualization is abysmal-bordering on ignorant.

    2. What am I not understanding 19:01? Please can you explain to me what is sexual about a 2 year old in spandex? Because I'm just not seeing it.

    3. I am not accusing everyone of being perverse 20:34, I am challenging the idea that children are being sexualised. Happily, it is only a tiny percentage of adults who see children as sexual, yet this minority view is the one sold to the public. And we don't really know anything because the subject is far too taboo to debate.

      Governments need us to be living in fear, if we didn't live in fear, we wouldn't need their protection. This century's witches or bogeymen are the 'paedophiles' - everyone hates them. We must be convinced they are lurking on every corner waiting to pounce. We need government agencies and enthusiastic individuals to root these sickos and loners out, they are a threat to our children. Pointing out the danger to children is a sure fire vote winner every time.

      But how many children are they actually protecting? Whilst it is admirable that a highly dedicated UK task force can hone in on a motley group of immature Asian men attempting to groom young girls in Britain from a seedy café in the back streets of Cairo, it doesn't do anything to assist girls like Tia Sharpe or Becky Watts who were murdered by members of their own family.

      I think if these paedophile hunters and vigilantes genuinely cared about children, they would be organising food and aid for the refugee children in Calais and addressing the needs of the thousands of kids suffering directly from the cuts to the frontline services here in the UK.

      Every picture of a child can have sexual connotations and every adult is a suspect unless they can prove otherwise. As an example, schools no longer allow parents to film or take pictures of their little ones in Nativity plays. The assumption being that ALL or at least some of these adults want the images to share with their paedo mates online. That is where this absurd ideology has taken us.

    4. @Cristobel-

      I was referring to the subject of child sexualization as a whole and not specifically to your 'spandex' comment and/or causal link to paedophilia.

      Child sexualization or the sexualization of children is well documented and has been subject to some research through cultural studies. Your view that it is a minority of people that see children in a sexualized way and that education of both the parents and child is enough to remedy this problem is absurdly simplistic. While nobody denies that education is an important intervention, the issue of sexualization of children is a global problem that inturn, impacts negatively on the child's self image and identity development. This small forum is not really equipped to discuss the scale/ length or breadth to give it any justice, so I respectfully suggest you read about it (corporate paedophilia/media sexualization of children) to gain a different perspective as you have stated that you are " challenging sexualisation" Which I have to say surprises me given you refer to yourself
      as being a 'feminist'

      Secondly, your comment regarding schools and parents being unable to take photographs of their children is inaccurate. Photographs are allowed to be taken-consent has to be formally or informally gained. Schools will write to parents, informing them that 'parental photography' is permitted, however, if the school wishes to take photographs they are subject to the Data Protection Act.
      It is because of the introduction of the Data Protection Act that initially caused this hysteria amongst schools as they misinterpreted the act. The introduction of Children's Act a few years later compounded this and fuelled the hysteria once again- it has now settled down and schools are using both acts responsibly in their policy decisions making.

      As for your comments regarding 'asian men sitting in cafés in Cairo' well, read about Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal, whereby, 1400 children were systematically raped, abducted and subject to child trafficking over many years and woefully let down by those responsible for their protection.

    5. @12:35
      & absolutely!

      As a side issue to Rotherham (oxford etc etc.). Every caring person is concerned about refugees and their plight.

      This concern perhaps should not extend to opening our borders.
      A slot of education will probably have little effect on cultural attitudes like this:
      It is a minority of refugees/migrants who were in Cologne that night but the cultural attitudes are widespread.
      Consent does not appear to be high on the list of priorities and not dissimilar to Rotherham, I gather the youngest victims were under 13
      "A Cologne imam has said the victims of the New Years Eve mob sex attacks had themselves to blame because they wore perfume" [& inappropriate clothing (in December!)].

      The largest portion of "refugees" appear to be young men -why are they not protecting their families?

      "Feminist" should be an outdated term BTW.


    "Sands, a mother of five, acted within weeks of hearing that Mr. Pleasted had [recently] sexually abused three children." [and had a string of previous convictions spanning decades]
    Sands had befriended the "sweet old man" who moved in next door.

    Just had her sentence more than doubled:

    Who appealed against the sentence and will her children be safe in the "care" of the state?

    1. 22:21 Please see my argument for education above.

    2. education huh?

      Education is a part of the answer but it comes at the price of innocence and trust (& the £££ of course)

      Sarah Sands may not (or may) be the "sharpest tool in the box" but I feel that education would have been of limited use in this case. If the mother cannot spot the danger, then it is a tall order to expect the child to -or then avoid being manoeuvred into silence?
      This woman was badly let down by the authorities who apparently housed this gentleman in the midst of so many children. What were they thinking?!!!
      It transpires that this man had a considerable number of victims. In these cases the unknown victims usually far exceed the known victims and a career paedophile can notch up several hundred victims during a lifetime. It is difficult to quantify the cost to the victims in damaged self worth, skewed sexuality, relationship/trust difficulties and even multiple suicides.
      Sarah Sands and her five children are paying a terrible price for the authorities' failure and for Sarah's alcohol-fogged response to it.
      Sarah Sands had apparently befriended the newcomer cooked him meals and considered him a role model for her children

      If the state fails to protect people then what exactly are people to do?

      Ros, you said that you "would personally cut off the dangly bits ..."
      "Education" is a non answer but this is an interesting idea.
      If Sarah had successfully deprived Michael Pleasted of his testicles instead of killing him I wonder what the public reaction and indeed the sentence would have been?
      Less than 7.5 years? or more???

  20. Crime Media Culture February 10, 2016

    “Ah … the power of mothers”: Bereaved mothers as victim-heroes in media enacted crusades for justice


    The display of maternal suffering is powerful, as the bereaved mother’s experience represents any parent’s deepest fear. When her pain is enmeshed with calls to support changes in our justice systems, it has the potential to bring about unconstitutional effects, for a mother’s love has no end and so her life sentence can only be addressed with equal amounts of endless suffering for the said offender (Valier and Lippens, 2004). This paper explores the construction of the bereaved mother figure as a victim-hero within contemporary media enacted crime narratives. It examines two murder cases in the New Zealand context where a bereaved mother’s displays of grief can be linked to changes made to the legal code. It will be argued that the character of the bereaved mother as a victim-hero has become a powerful agent of change that has implications for criminal justice system modification. It is argued that critical attention is required of criminology to the role of the good mother in criminal justice discourses, and in particular to the ways in which the good mother is characterised in mediated public discourses.

  21. “Untouchable,” a new documentary which premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York last week.

    Film Synopsis

    When the most powerful lobbyist in Florida discovers that the nanny has sexually abused his daughter, he harnesses his extraordinary political power to pass the toughest sex offender laws in the nation. UNTOUCHABLE chronicles his crusade, and its impact on the lives of several of the 800,000 people forced to live under the kinds of laws he has championed. The film interweaves intimate portraits of men and women who have been branded sex offenders with the heartbreaking stories of those who have suffered sexual abuse. It is a film that pushes viewers toward an uncomfortable place, requiring them to walk in the shoes of those who have survived sexual abuse, but to still bear witness to the experiences of those we revile.