Here's an example: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6471327.ece
The reason why I'm posting this is that a lot of people seem to think that there's no way that a woman can be a pedophile; ie, be sexually attracted to children. So they're saying that the women abused the children solely for the benefit of the male pedophile they were chatting to on Facebook. But I don't see how anyone, male or female, could perpetrate such disgusting acts on children without getting a thrill off it. The acts of abuse are so horrible, that they are not mentioned in detail.
The man was equally disgusting; he not only had a computer stuffed full of child abuse photos, but also committed sexual acts with his dog and was a convicted sex offender. But that doesn't excuse the women involved. Plus the women are refusing to name the children they abused, so the parents don't even know if their child was abused or not.
More links on the case, which might not be known of in America:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6857687.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6856750.ece
The reason why I'm posting this is that a lot of people seem to think that there's no way that a woman can be a pedophile; ie, be sexually attracted to children. So they're saying that the women abused the children solely for the benefit of the male pedophile they were chatting to on Facebook. But I don't see how anyone, male or female, could perpetrate such disgusting acts on children without getting a thrill off it. The acts of abuse are so horrible, that they are not mentioned in detail.
The man was equally disgusting; he not only had a computer stuffed full of child abuse photos, but also committed sexual acts with his dog and was a convicted sex offender. But that doesn't excuse the women involved. Plus the women are refusing to name the children they abused, so the parents don't even know if their child was abused or not.
More links on the case, which might not be known of in America:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6857687.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6856750.ece
Comment